Katherine Swynford

Observations on Dugdale's Drawing of Katherine & Joan's Tombs

2010-11-22T22:45:00.000-08:00

Icy gist Dame Katerine Duchesse de Lancastre, jadys feme de la tres noble et tres gracious Prince John, Duke de Lancastre, fitz a tres noble Roy Edward le tierce, La quelle Katerine morust le x jour de May l'an du grace M. cccc. tierz, de quelle alme Dieu yet merci et pité. Amen.

I only recently looked closely enough at the Dugdale drawings to notice what seem to be a few errors. You can find Dugdale's drawing of Joan Beaufort's and Katherine Swynford's Lincoln Cathedral tombs above. You can view a larger version of this drawing at my Katherine Swynford Facebook group page. Katherine's tomb is at the top and Joan's at the bottom, reflecting the fact that the two tombs were originally side-by-side rather than end-to-end as they are now (seemingly chopping of a portion of the head of Joan's tomb).

The tombs were constructed of Purbeck marble (although photos make it look as if only the top of Joan's tomb was made of the same marble as her mother's) and both originally sported memorial brass effigies, despoiled during by Cromwell's men during the English Civil War in 1644. Joan was instrumental in finally establishing the chantry altar chapel envisioned by her father before his own 1399 death for that of his third wife, who died in 1403 but whose tomb and architectural surroundings date its construction to a good 20 years later if my memory serves me (q.v. the Harvey pamphlet, referenced below, which I've seen available online for about £14 -- I'll warn you: it's a pamphlet, not a book, but I'm glad I bought it at the cathedral when it could still be had cheaply!).

What's interesting about the Dugdale drawing is that it purports to show Joan's tomb as being the one with the circular enameled insets along the side. However, an 1809 drawing by John Buckler, below, and reproduced in the Lincoln Cathedral publication "Catherine Swynford's Chantry" by John Hooper Harvey, shows that it was the larger of the two tombs, that of Katherine, whose tomb had such side circular enameled insets:

The above drawing does not seem to show The Irons which can be clearly seen in the photo below, taken by Christy Robinson and which can be seen in a larger size here at The Beauforts Facebook group page:

Christy Robinson's image seems to show shield-shaped insets, perhaps originally painted (as on the arms of the weepers on the tomb of Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk, at Ewelme) on the smaller of the two tombs. Also, the Dugdale drawing shows four circular insets, while the Buckler drawing and modern photographs correctly indicate that there were five:

Photo (c) Alistair Ross and found here.

Photo (c) "Palimzest" and found here

So, too, does this shot, taken from a family history website:

As does this top-shot of Katherine's tomb and part of Joan's taken by Roger Joy and (c) him, found at the website of The Katherine Swynford Society:

Dr. Joy has proposed a lovely recreation of Katherine's brass top, taking perhaps some liberties not supported by either the Dugdale drawing or the remains of the tomb itself, but liberties which are certainly to be artistically appreciated:

(see larger version at link above)

Joan's tomb seems to have heraldic shields marching at the bottom of her feet, but not Katherine's. This recreation, however, shows the arms of Swynford, St. Edward the Confessor and those of Roet. The arms of Roet show a somewhat controversial pierced mullet, described in only two places: a purported forgery of a grant of arms by Katherine's father to the Brothers Andrewe, and in a physical examination of her seal when it was still extant in the 19th century. Dr. Joy has also included a small pet dog at Katherine's feet -- a charming and historically authentic touch.

Not to feel too sorry for poor Joan, however, inasmuch as while Katherine's tomb inscription was the conventional request for a passers-by's prayer and basic information on Katherine's identity (see quotation at the top of this post, below Dugdale's image), Joan's originally recorded something to the effect that the entire nation mourned her passing (Below is Joan and some of her daughters).

All of this makes me wonder, however, what exactly happened with the Dugdale drawing? It would seem that a very hurried sketch was made with notes that were perhaps later misinterpreted.

I wonder what the five insets originally were. My guess would include an emblem of the Order of the Garter, a Lancastrian collar of SS's, her own arms encircled by either, her arms impaled by those of John of Gaunt (and encircled)... and just maybe her encircled arms impaled by those of Swynford? And the photos above, taken from both sides of the tomb, show that those circular insets were on both sides of Katherine's tomb.

Any alternative ideas?

$50 for a compilation of Wikipedia articles? I think not!

2010-09-24T21:55:00.000-07:00

Well... I'm certainly not paying that much for a compilation of wikipedia entries. Thanks to Susan Higgenbotham for this heads-up!

New Book on Katherine Swynford?

2010-09-24T21:35:00.000-07:00

There's apparently another new book out on our Katherine:

Katherine Swynford by by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster, SBN: 6130655827 / ISBN-13: 9786130655822, Alphascript Publishing, 2010, 94 pages.

$US50 for a 94-page paperback?

Hmmmmm...

Looking for information on the Beauforts?

2010-07-10T21:32:00.000-07:00

Historical fiction author Susan Higginbotham has created a new resource for fans of Katherine Swynford and her family. If you are on Facebook, go here to visit her Facebook group dedicated to the Beauforts.

Of course, you can also read the brief bio's I've got posted at http://katherineswynford.tk.

Enjoy!

New Hollar Portrayal of Old St. Paul's Discovered

2010-07-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

One of only a few known preparatory drawings made by the Bohemian artist Wencelslaus Hollar for his spectacular series of 14 engravings of Old St. Paul's Cathedral for Dugdale's monumental history of the structure was recently discovered and is expected to fetch between £60,000 and £80,000 on auction at Sotheby's.

It is only the second known Hollar preparatory drawing of Old St. Paul's in existence.

I have compiled a PDF of all the Old St. Paul's images I could find online that you can find here.

Roet Pendant Give-Away

2010-06-18T12:23:00.000-07:00

Wonderful news from Michelle Moore! She produces a line of unique jewelry related to her favorite fiction and historical fiction authors, including Anya Seton, and she has provided a copy of her Roet arms pendants to the folks over at the Historical Tapestry blog.

Michelle also offers several beautiful other items with the same design, so be certain to go enter yourself into the give-away contest!

Follow Katherine Swynford on Facebook!

2010-06-12T21:54:00.000-07:00

Did you know that there's a Katherine Swynford group page on Facebook? Follow us there, or at the new Katherine Swynford web page!

http://http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112794715415763&ref=ts
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
http://www.katherineswynford.tk

New Katherine Swynford Website

2010-05-27T21:52:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to briefly announce I have a new fledgling Katherine Swynford-related website up which you can find here.

Not a whole lot there yet except for some brief discussion of Katherine iconography/imagery, brief bios of her Beaufort children, and images of Kettlethorpe, but check back often! I hope to be adding some genealogy soon... Let me know what you want to see :-)

Enjoy!

http://katherineswynford.tk

The Feast of St. George & the Order of the Garter

2010-04-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

As for Saint George O'
Saint George he was a knight, O!
Of all the knights in Christendom,
Saint George is the right, O!

1450s-era Stained Glass Depiction of St. George
St. Winnow's Church, Cornwall

The day was April 23 in the year 1387 and, while Katherine had been spending much of her time around Lincolnshire when not attending on the young Mary of Derby, on this particular day she was at St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, about to do her part to help promote the transformation of St. George into her nation's patron saint. Wearing her woven woolen scarlet robes probably embroidered with images of the Garter (like the image above, though the robes are now made of blue velvet), and issued on the authority of King Richard II, Katherine and and a Lady de Gomeneys joined eight other ladies and became Dominae de Secta et Liberatura Garterii. They would be among the first Ladies of the Garter (LG) who were not a wife, widow or daughter of a founding male companion (Knight of the Garter, or KG). A great honor, indeed, even for someone like Katherine, who had grown up in aristocratic courts.

Edward III, Founder, Order of the Garter
from Brugges' Garter Book.

In establishing the Order, Edward III clearly head in mind a revival of the great Arthurian chivalric ideals, ideals in which there were roles for women even if he wasn't particularly clear on what they should be in his new Order.

Evidence from the tomb of Katherine's great-niece Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk, suggests that Ladies as well as male companions wore an actual garter for the festivities as well, with men wearing them below the left knee and women wearing them above the left wrist, so perhaps Katherine wore one of those as the group of women solemnly entered St. George's Chapel to hear mass. Actual garters issued for Lady Companions in 1379 were made with silver-gilt appointments and probably had the Order's motto embroidered upon them (Honi Soit Qui Mal Ypense). Though her tomb was despoiled of its brass and enameled elements, to this day one can still see the indents on Katherine's tomb which at one time proudly displayed her status as a LG along the sides, with the Garter emblem encircling likely her arms.

While her charges, Philippa and Elizabeth of Lancaster, were made LG companions as early as 1378, along with their father's 2nd wife, Constance of Castile, Katherine seems to have attended ceremonies as a LG from 1387/8 through 1390 and then again from 1395 through 1398, at which time her husband's illness that finally took his life likely became evident and they retired from courtly life.

There is little evidence for other specific activities of the LG companions in the early period. Indeed, during the life of the order's founder, only the founder's wife and daughter were made female companions and, even then, their activities with respect to the order are not well documented. There is, however, greater documentation, though incomplete, extant for the the admission of LG companions during the reign of Richard II, who clearly used his position and the ability to create LG companions as a sign of political favor, which may well explain Katherine's admission as an early LG who was neither a wife/widow nor daughter of an original male KG companion. Still, it was clearly an honor and one which Katherine was likely to appreciate and take advantage of; so much for her slinking about in the post-1381 period as a complete social reject! Katherine and the other ladies may have sat in the rood loft of the chapel, attending High Mass and Evensong, after which there likely was a splendid banquet feast, and perhaps the mummer's plays, re-enacting the victory of good over evil in St. George slaying the dragon, an activity that would be repeated in countless villages and manor houses throughout the country.

Katherine's daughter, Joan Beaufort, would be admitted in 1399, and two of her Beaufort daughter-in-laws, Margaret Holland (1399) and Margaret Neville (1408), would also be made LG companions.

Not long after, the LG companions component of the Order became stagnant and ignored, not to be revived until centuries later, and thus Katherine Swynford likely witnessed the LG component close to its apex of achievement.

Above is Margaret of Anjou watching Order festivities,
specifically, St. George slaying the dragon.

You can read more about the Order and its Lady companions in Beltz' old but authoritative book here, and you can experience St. George's Chapel, Windsor, in 360° panoramas here (these are hugely fun!).

St. George's Chapel at Windsor.

Of Bread & Sheep...

2009-07-29T19:03:00.000-07:00

Assisa Panis (Assize of Bread): When a Quarter of Wheat is sold for 12d., then Wastel Bread of a farthing shall weigh £6 and 16s... And if a Baker of Brewer be convicted that they have not kept the foresaid Assizes, the First, Second and Third time they shall be amerced, according to the Quantity of their offence; and that as often as a Baker shall offend in the weight of a farthing loaf of bread not above 2s. weight, that then he be amerced as before is said; but if he exceed 2s. then he ought to undergo the judgment of the Pillory without any redemption of money. In like manner shall it be done if he offend oftentimes and will not amend, then he shall suffer the Judgment of the Body, that is to say, the Pillory if he offend in the weight of a farthing loaf under two shillings weight as is aforesaid. Likewise the woman brewer shall be punished by the Tumbrell, trebuchet, or castigatorie, if she offend divers times and will not amend. --Source

Looking more closely around her new home, Katheryn could likely see the reason for the expanse of pastureland: sheep! And not a small number of them, either. Frequent overflows of the rivers and aqueducts in the vicinity of Kettlethorpe had begun to wash away the midland's fertile soil, depositing a sandy layer of silting that, along with other causes, would gradually result in subsistence farming for the local peasants. Kettlethorpe's laborers largely got by on a diet of grain-gruel, root vegetables, and whatever fish, fresh or salted, that could be come by.

At Kettlethorpe Manor, Katheryn and her immediate household would have a somewhat better diet, perhaps supplemented with fresh and preserved wild game and the assiduously guarded imported goods that were provisioned under lock and key. Ale was the house beverage and its byproduct contributed to the production of bread, that staple of king and commoner alike. Bread was of such importance that its production was regulated and fines or other punishment meted out to bakers who cheated their customers.

Katheryn's marriage to Sir Hugh Swynford of Kettlethorpe, perhaps as early as 1363/4 , brought her to what was probably a Lincolnshire wool boom town. The area's fortunes were on the ascendancy beginning in the 12th century, primarily due to the fine quality of Lincolnshire wool and the highly sought woven goods made with it, both at home and abroad. 12th century Lincoln had more than 200 wool spinners, men (mostly) who were by and large wealthy and powerful. Trade was prosperous, a condition made possible by Henry II's recutting a silted Fosse Dyke, a situation that would be repeated for centuries. Especially coveted were Lincolnshire scarlet cloths, colored with a dyestuff made from the pulverized remains of an exotic beetle; this deep red Lincoln fabric was the highest-priced woolen on the competitive Venetian market in 1265. In 1240 two pieces of scarlet Lincolnshire cloth were purchased by the Bishop of Winchester as a gift from the English king to the Norwegian queen. A second favored color of Lincoln woolen goods was the green so famously associated with Robin Hood(.

The new prosperity in Lincolnshire doubtless made it an attractive place to settle for second sons and junior branches of knightly families who needed to find their fortunes outside of the oldest surviving son's inheritance. Hugh Swynford's ancestors originally hailed from the county of Huntingdon but there is evidence that what is perhaps a cadet branch of the family made its way to Lincoln by the waning years of the 13th century, owning lands in Dunston, Nocton, Kettlethorpe, Harlaxton and elsewhere.

However, by the end of the 13th century, Lincolnshire was in decline. London had begun to take over her woolen industry and the Fosse Dyke was again silted, resulting in the need to transport goods by the more cumbersome land route. Hill notes that in 1302 the commons of Lincolnshire complained that men of religion drove a wool trade, not only in the produce of their own sheep, but also by sending their lay brethren about the county to buy cheap and sell dear. In addition, military campaigns with France and Flanders greatly reduced the numbers of foreign nationals traveling to Lincoln to purchase her fine cloth and wool, spinners were deserting Lincoln for London, and the Italians had begun to weave fine cloth as well.

The first quarter of the 14th century was simply not kind to many of Europe's inhabitants. Following years of productive trade, Scotland and England found themselves at war over, among other things, the wool trade, and between that and London merchants bypassing the Lowlands weavers market by weaving cloth themselves, the two found themselves battling for an ever-decreasing international market for their raw wool markets as well as the various exclusions from different countries due to the 100 Years War. They also faced concomitant higher prices for the imported processed goods upon which both depended.
It is ironic that the popular hero Robin Hood seems to have arisen at this very time and place in history. While modern-day portrayals depict him as a populist protesting overbearing royal taxes under the reign of John I, it would appear that he may actually have existed in in either the 13th or 14th century midlands which found some of its economic fortunes tied to Scottish exporters and their continental contacts, thus making Lincolnshire green a somewhat unpatriotic standard as far as the Crown may have been concerned.

The importance of the wool trade and accompanying political alliances cannot be overemphasized. Previously, Scotland, which produced little outside of wool, had had productive trade with the English, especially the port cities of the north, which profitably exported the raw wool of both the Scots as well as by that produced in England's midlands and beyond. Lincoln in particular, saw her population and fortunes increase in meteoric fashion in the 12th and 13th centuries, in the 14th only to struggle with the desertion of tradesmen and its heretofore profitable fairs. Lincolnshire lands diminished greatly in value as they, like the major food producing areas of the northern continent, experienced devastating rains and resulting floods that destroyed crops and led to famine.

Kettlethorpe and her inhabitants were not immune to this financial devastation. It was this backdrop of diminishing economic prospects that saw some of the earlier members of the Swynford family take up residence in Lincolnshire: Simon de Swynford is found in the service of Robert Darcy in Dunston (Lincs) in 1309 and was perhaps a near relative of the first Swynford owner of Kettlethorpe Manor, Thomas de Swynford (d. 1311/1312). Thomas married Margaret Darcy (d. 1341), sister of Phillip Darcy, son of Norman Darcy, by 1307. Their son, John de Swynford, of Kettlethorpe, died ca 1343/44, having held land and rents in Nocton and Dunston of Robert Darcy, the elder, but seems to have lost Kettlethorpe as early as 1330. Thomas and Margaret also had a second son, Thomas, the likely father of Hugh Swynford.

Shortly after Hugh's father, Thomas Swynford, was able to repurchase what would become the family's celebrated residence by 1349, he was ordered to serve on a 1352 commission to examine and report back on problems concerning the walls, dykes, gutters, gutters, drains, bridges, causeways and wears of the waters of Trent, which suggests that the aqueous thoroughfare had again become unnavigable, making it difficult if not costly to get local export goods to port. By his death nearly 10 years later, Kettlethorpe Manor's adjacent meadow would be described as overflowed by the waters of Trent... and thus was probably not particularly productive.

How had a likely ward of the queen ended up thus?

Where are you? (redux)

2009-03-03T19:40:00.000-08:00

View Katherine Swynford Fans in a larger map

I liked this so much that I felt compelled to make a new map on Google inasmuch as Frappr has gone by the wayside.

Feel free to add yourself!

Medieval Lent & Judaism

2009-02-26T15:58:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, which kicks off the penitential season of Lent. The faithful head to their parish church to hear mass and receive the mark of the cross on their forehead from the ashes of the previous Palm Sunday's palm fronds. Palm trees almost certainly didn't grow in Katherine Swynford's England; one wonders what was burned at SS Peter & Paul in Kettlethorpe?

I've read several accounts of why ashes are daubed onto people's heads. Certainly there is a long tradition of ashes atop the penitent's head in Jewish tradition, as they connote sorrow, mourning and repentance (Jonah 3:4-10; Jeremiah 6:26). However the origin of the specific mark of a cross (from the Greek letter chi, first letter of Christos) may come from Judaism as well. Ezekiel references the protective mark (in Hebrew, tav, a letter which looked a bit like a cross or x) on God's faithful. I find this (a) interesting and (b) more than a little ironic given that, according to the website that you can visit by clicking on this blog entry's title link, one of the more practical reasons for being seen as very publicly observing Lent is that one might not be suspected a Jew!

The blog author referenced above makes the point that Nowadays it's hard for the average Westerner to comprehend how strong an influence religion was... on the medieval mind. For someone like me who was raised in an American religion that sprang up in the 19th century and which observed few to none of the "old" Christian practices, the comprehension gap is doubly-wide. It would be easy enough to dismiss the blogger's sentiment that it was a very good thing indeed to be seen going about medieval life with your ashen cross and not eating during the course of the day but for a particular incident from medieval Lincolnshire history: the "martyrdom" of Little St. Hugh.

In 1255, an eight year old Lincolnshire boy went missing for a month and was eventually discovered at the bottom of a well. A local Jew was tortured into a confession that Jewish practice demanded the annual practice of the ritual murder of a Christian. The lie has been repeated with variations throughout the ages and is generally referred to as a blood libel. The tortured man was executed and as many as 90 Jews were arrested, imprisoned in the Tower of London, with 18 of them being hung and their property confiscated. A 1783 ballad account, The Ballad of Little Sir Hugh, is as follows:
She's led him in through ae dark door,
And sae has she thro' nine;
She's laid him on a dressing-table,
And stickit him like a swine.
And first came out the thick, thick blood,
And syne came out the thin;
And syne came out the bonny heart's blood;
There was nae mair within.
She's row'd him in a cake o'lead,
Bade him lie still and sleep;
She's thrown him in Our Lady's draw-well
Was fifty fathom deep.

You can read more about blood libel and how widespread the phenomenon was here. despite Europe's Jews being exonerated of such charges by at least 5 popes.

The story of Little St. Hugh was likely vividly retold in Katherine's Lincolnshire, by people who may have heard it from someone who actually witnessed it. Ironically, a century earlier, the financing of the construction of Lincoln Cathedral and two abbeys was made possible by a Jew, one Aaron of Lincoln. Visitors to Lincoln can still view his house and those of other members of Lincoln's once prosperous Jewish community:

The 12th-century structure is said to be one of the oldest habitable dwellings in England. Another Norman-era Jewish residence in Lincoln is currently occupied by a restaurant, the website of which recounts the building's history, it having been the residence of a Jewess executed for coin-clipping in 1290, the year all Jews were banned from England. You can view and download a Google 3D model here of it as well, and here can be found another photo of it on Flickr. And a particularly fine photo that has been released into the public domain by the photographer can also be seen. The story of Lincoln's Jewish community is a fascinating one; for further reading, try Cecil Roth's Mediaeval Lincoln Jewry and its Synagogue. I read it many years ago and I'm hoping Alibris has a copy!

More medieval Lent to follow at a later time...

Another 1311 Thomas Swynford!

2009-01-29T22:44:00.001-08:00

This will just be a short notice of my finding a Thomas Swynford who is sheriff of Derby and Nottingham in 1311 and my current rambling state of thought concerning the genealogy of the Swynford family:

E. 101/374/I5. T. de Swynford, sheriff of Notts. and Derby, received on 8 Jan. I3II, a Wardrobe letter for L70 9s. 5d.; in K.R. Mem. Roll 84, m. 87 (Status et Visus, Easter, 4 Ed. II), he is allowed the sum. He got the tally on the following 3 Nov. (I. Roll I59, R. Roll I98). These letters of acquittance were not in the same form as the ordinary " Debentur in Garderoba," but were epistolary in style, addressed affectionately to the Treasurer and Chamberlains by the Wardrobe Keeper or in his name, and
bearing his seal appended by a tongue, not applied on the face. The Exchequer endorsed them with the date when the allowance was made or the tally levied.

[SOURCE: Johnson, J.H., The System of Account in the Wardrobe of Edward II. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, Vol. 12, (1929), p. 78.]

The following is the beginnings of my current rough draft of an article I hope to develop and submit for publication on the subject.

In 2003/41, I offered an argument as to some possible origins for the Swynford family famously associated with Katherine Roet Swynford, who became John of Gaunt's third wife in 1396 after being his mistress for a quarter century. Additional research undertaken since that time has revealed some errors in my earlier conclusions which I wish to correct here.

A Tale of Two Thomases

In my earlier two-part article, I noted that, in the era in which the father of Hugh Swynford would have been an active adult, he seemed to have rather a lot of responsibilities spread over three or more counties/shires. As I noted then, there are records of a Thomas Swynford serving variously as sheriff of Bedford, Buckingham and Rutland in the mid-1340s2. , Notably, none of these include Lincoln, in which Hugh's father is known to have owned Kettlethorpe manor and an interest in the also Lincolnshire manor of Coleby3. Indeed, hitherto, the standard argument4 has been that Kettlethorpe didn't come into the Swynford family possession until 13565, a mere five years before Thomas Swynford's death.

Bentley has claimed (1931, p.156) that the family had been seated in Lincoln prior to the reign of Edward II. However this has proved troublesome to verify inasmuch as the early Swynfords appear to have been based in Huntingdon6. The Swynford family genealogy is indeed fairly complicated, as I will attempt to show.

With respect to the one or more Thomas Swynfords of the 1340s we find that the family has branched into at least two main branches. Certainly, the Thomas Swynford who was sheriff of Buckinghamshire cannot be identical with the Thomas Swynford who was the father of Hugh Swynford. Heraldry records that the Buckingham/Bedford Thomas' arms as being distinctly different from the boars' heads arms of the Thomas/Hugh Swynford family line. The Buckingham Thomas Swynford bore arms derivative of that of the Burgate, Suffolk family: a paly of six, argent and sable7. This Thomas Swynford is not the last Swynford to bear a paly of six, argent and sable, but he may well be the first. While a few other Swynfords are known to have been lords of the Burgate estate of Suffolk, namely, Sir John Swynford (1315), with his three boars' heads on a field crusilly, and Sir Robert Swynford (1340), with his three boars' heads, 2 and 1, on a field with a chevron (tinctures are not indicated)8. However, the arms of Sir Peter Burgate (1311) are a paly of six (presumably argent and sable, although again, as with the seals of John and Robert Swynford, no tinctures are indicated)9.

Similarly, the arms of Sir Richard de Burgate (1343) are a paly of six on a shield with three unidentifiable charges across the top of the shield10. This Richard de Burgate may be identical with the individual of the same name who is named in a list of individuals in the Odiam Hundred subsidy of 1/20th of 1327 for Liss, Hampshire11, while Peter de Burgate may be related to the Peter de Burgate who, in 1272, was granted charter to hold a market at the manor. This last Peter de Burgate is known to have had a son Robert de Burgate who was holding said market on 1 November 128612. In any case, arms of a paly of six, argent and some other color may well originate with the these two lords who held the Burgate, Suffolk, estate of the late 13th/early 14th century.

What remains unclear is how and when an unknown Swynford male took on the arms of Burgate. Perhaps a younger son married a Burgate heiress? This speculation seems supported by the finding of heraldic stained glass in the parish church of St. Andrew, Great Staughton:

The north chapel, probably built about 1455, has a blocked three-light east window; on the north side is a shallow bay having a three-light window in its north wall and very small square-headed lights at the sides, and arched over with a panelled vault having three bosses carved with shields, (fn. 261) viz.: (1) in the centre, [Argent] on a cross [Sable] six escallops [Or] (Stonham), impaling [Argent] a horse-barnacle [Sable] (Barnack); (2) [Gules] a fesse dancette between seven crosses croslet [Or] (Engaine), impaling [Argent] two pales [Sable] (should be paly, for Burgatt); (3) [Argent] a cross engrailed [Vert] (Noon), impaling [Argent] three boars' heads couped [Gules] (Swinford)13.

This last articulation of Swynford arms is identical with arms borne by a John de Swynford of Huntingdon in the reign of Edward II14.. This split of the Huntingdon-based Swynford family would ultimately see a William de Burgate in possession of a part of the Great Stukeley, Huntingdon manor called Swynefordsmanere in 1380[15].

It is unclear how William de Burgate came into possession of the Swynford property, but intermarriage with with the Swynford paly of six family seems a plausible enough explanation. It also appears that this branch of the Swynford family also intermarried with that of Tyrell, as the Burgate/Swynford paly of six arms are found quartered with those of Tyrell in both the 1557 brass of Lady Jane Ingleton1 and the 17th century stained glass window (called The Italian Window) of Thornton College2.

Returning to the boars' arms-bearing Swynfords, at some point it appears that a branch settled in Lincoln, proving Bentley right. In 1309 a Simon de Swynford3 is in the service of Robert Darcy in Dunston, Lincolnshire4, one of many relationships between the families Swynford and Darcy5. According to a document in the British National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/), it would seem that a Thomas Swynford of Lincs., who had a wife named Margaret and a son and heir, John, holding property in Kettlethorpe, had married into the D'arcy family, as did his later great-great-grandson, Thomas Swynford:

"ref. DDTO K 5/22 - date: 1307-8 ... Conf: Philip de Arci, knt., s. & h. of Sir Norman de Arci, knt., the conf. of the said Sir Norman to Thos. de Swyneford & w. Margaret, my sister, lands etc., in Noketon, co. Linc."

Noketon is evidently Nocton. In 1311/12, this Thomas Swynford, Lord of Kettlethorpe(6), died, leaving his son and heir, John Swynford, as the new Lord of Kettlethorpe, a position he continued to hold as late as 13287. This John Swynford is likely the same individual who was in the company of Lord Mowbray and owning land in Kelham in 1324(8). The relationship between Simon Swynford and the Thomas – John – Thomas Swynfords is unclear, but by the mid 14th-century available records show a number of individuals with the surname Swynford in Lincolnshire.

It would seem that John Swynford experienced sufficient financial difficulties such that he was compelled to alienate his ownership of Kettlethorpe, as William de la Croice is Lord of Kettlethorpe in 1331[9], and the manor is not noted as being again in the hands of the Swynford family until 1349, when Hugh Swynford's father, Thomas, is in possession of it10. The rationale for surmising that John Swynford lost Kettlethorpe because of financial problems may be glimpsed in an examination of the inquisition post mortem of Hugh's father, Thomas. [see Welcome to Kettlethorpe blog entry]

The relationship between Simon Swynford and the Thomas – John – Thomas Swynfords is at best uncertain, but by the early/mid 14th-century, available records show as number of individuals with the surname Swynford settled in Lincolnshire. For example, in 1358 a Margaret Swynford, mother of Thomas Swynford, holds lands in Nocton1; a Hugh Swynford who is not the later husband of Katherine Roet is found granting land to the prior and convent of Spalding in Lincoln2; in 1345 and 1358 a William Swynford is witness to a charter concerning two manors in Lincoln3 and lands in Northampton4; he is likely to be identical with the William Swynford who held land of Robert Darcy in Dunston in 1346[5]; a Juliana Swynford also held lands, of Philip Darcy, there in that year6. And also appearing in 1346 Lincolnshire records is a Gregory de Swynford, witnessing a charter7.

While it proves difficult to ascertain the exact familial relationship between the above-named individuals, there seem to be two branches in Lincoln and one in Northampton which can be identified with greater certainty. We will begin with Norman de Swynford, who held a tenement in Brauncewell in 1346[8]. In 1366 Norman de Swynford, esq., entered into the service of King Charles of Navarre9 quite possibly because he seems to have been a bit of a scoundrel and he might have found it expedient to leave the country for a while. The year before, Norman Swynford found himself at the center of a legal battle over the Lincolnshire manor of Harlaxton, originally held by John de Warenne, earl of Suffolk, and alienated without license by him to John de Braose10. De Braose had married Margaret Trehampton who, after being widowed, married secondly Norman Swynford11, and thus Swynford enjoyed the properties and privileges of the de Braose heir during his minority. When the heir attained his age of majority, he, in turn, released Harlaxton to Edmund Swynford; however, due to the lack of license for the various alienations, Harlaxton was taken into the king's hands, to the great impoverishment of Edmund Swynford12.

More than a decade prior to that debacle, Norman de Swynford was at the center of a suit pitting him against Edmund of Langely: Edmund states that he holds the lands that belonged to Earl Warenne beyond Trent of the gift of his king and father, but that Norman de Swyneford is attempting deceitfully to recover his wife's dower against the Countess Warenne in Sowerbyshire and Holmfirth, which are part of these lands, and assigned to the Countess as her dower, claiming that John de Brewes, his wife's late husband, was seised of these lands through the earl. If he recovers these lands, Edmund will lose them forever. He asks that the council might be ordered not to allow any assize to pass against him or the countess at the suit of Swyneford until the council is better advised, and he further requests that if anything has been begun in this matter that it be hastily repealed1.

Norman even attempted to impeded the delivery of the de Braose inheritance to his wife's son by claiming that the de Braose heir suffered from idiocy1 when in fact he did not2. Moreover, he was accused of stealing various church relics3 which had been assembled by his wife's first husband.

It would seem that Norman had at least one and possibly as many as three sons by Margaret Trehampton, namely, the aforementioned Edmund, who came into possession of the Lincolnshire manor of Harlaxton by 1340 (but seems to have lost it by 1341[4,] and possibly the Norman Swynford living through the end of the century, as well as the Thomas Swynford of Bedford5.

The scandalous Norman de Swynford appears to have died by 13681. Even though Edmund de Swynford and his wife appear to have lost Harlaxton Manor, it is later found in the possession of the Belesby family in 8 Henry VI[2]. This is interesting inasmuch as the family of Belesby [see entry concerning Luttrell monuments at Irnham] is said to have intermarried with that of Swynford3.

Later additions to this post will look at the Northampton Swynfords as well as perhaps correcting numerous typos and grammos.

Artifacts of Kettlethorpe

2008-12-01T13:42:00.000-08:00

Pevsner, p. 413, describes the parish church of Ss Peter and Paul at Kettlethorpe thusly:

Small, unbuttressed W tower, the W doorway with Perp parts. Nave basically medieval, but mostly of 1840-5, with windows of 1896 by Herbert Kirk. Chancel of stone, also with Victorianized windows (E 1874, the others 1896). Bare interior, a N aisle formed by two iron rods. In the N wall of the chancel a reset C15 angel corbel with shield bearing the royal arms, supporting a moulded octagonal capital...

Visitors to Kettlethorpe may be disappointed to discover that the medieval-looking structure they are visiting is not in fact identical with the church in which Katherine heard services. In fact, the only medieval structure remaining at Kettlethorpe is a portion of its gatehouse:

Anthony Goodman has described the gatehouse as a hint of unexpected magnificence while Pevsner notes that Of the C14 house of the Swynford family only the gateway remains, of stone, with battlements and typically C14 sunk mouldings. The back later strengthened by brickwork. In the r. wall a blocked C14 archway in situ. I've read speculation somewhere that the arch may have been partially disassembled and reassembled, speculation being that the lower portions were reassembled with greater authenticity than the upper portion but I'm not easily finding that reference now.

The medieval Kettlethorpe manor, which also no longer exists, is said to have been typical of Lincolnshire manor houses in that it eventually was moated and guarded by its gateway entry like this example at Baddesley Clinton.

It probably didn't start out quite so impressive. To the left is a diagram of a typical 14th century manor house. You can see the reconstructed interior of a typical hall here. You'll notice there are no moats and no gatehouse-walled enclosure. The manor house that Katherine first came to inhabit was probably very much like the depiction above: it likely was composed of the main hall (the larger rectangular building) which served as the communal eating, sleeping, and interaction focus for those living on and working on the manor grounds. By Katherine's time, the main hall, constructed of brick or stone with a timbered roof, had an open fire, wooden tables behind which were curtained off rudimentary sleeping quarters (on straw beds), and one end was the raised dias where the lord of the manor and his family would eat and receive visitors. Off either end of the main hall were located the solar, which was the private living quarters for the lord of the manor and his family, and the kitchen and buttery, where food was provisioned and prepared. Oftentimes, there might be a small chapel as well, and some manor houses also included secondary private living spaces above the buttery.

However, becoming the Duke's mistress in the early 1370s brought its advantages for Katherine Swynford: John of Gaunt ordered the delivery of some 60 oaks to Kettlethorpe in 1375 (John of Gaunt's Register 1372-76, no. 1608) for the benefit of Katherine's apparent building programme, and Richard II later gave her permission to enclose a park of 300 acres in 1383 (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1381-85, 317).

The gatehouse is adorned with charming little gargoyles, seen in this close-up photo taken by Roger Joy (unless otherwise credited, the photos are (c) Roger Joy.) This particular gargoyle (there's a matching one on the other side) looks like he's about to fall off! Roger Joy has an interesting theory about this gargoyle -- that he was originally attached to the medieval parish church across the way, a theory made all the more plausible by an examination of a 1793 painting of the medieval church (before it was pulled down and reassembled):

(Sorry the image is so small; the original is not but Google/Blogger is resizing it I suppose; the painter is Claude Natts, who did a companion piece of Kettlethorpe Hall, but the Hall had unfortunately already been completely reconstructed unlike the church).

Here is an image Roger took of the Mavesyn Ridware Church tower adorned up top with, you guessed it, gargoyles! And the 1793 painting does appear to show little juts off the tower's edge, so perhaps Roger is correct about the gargoyles currently gracing Kettlethorpe Hall's gatehouse.

Both the Mavesyn Ridware Church image as well as the 1793 painting provide us with clues as to the appearance of Kettlethorpe's medieval church: both possessed a grand, dominating tower and stone tracery windows which no doubt held splendid medieval stained glass, none of which unfortunately remains at Kettlethorpe, but, fortunately for us, somebody thought enough of those window remnants to regift them to building efforts at the church at Messingham, where they can still be viewed today. All stained glass images below are (c) Gordon Plumb, are used with permission, and he says you're not to use them to any profit, as I am certainly not.

Here we have the window commemorating the story of Doubting Thomas before the risen Christ that originally graced Kettlethorpe's church. Much of this glass has been dated to ca. 1340-50 and thus you are looking at much of the same didactic windows that Katherine saw more than 600 years ago.

Here is a close-up of the Doubting Thomas scene; the next close-up is one of several delightful musician images that occur throughout many of the Kettlethorpe glass pieces:

Note the richness of the colors in the 600+ year old glass: gold-golds, cobalt blues; the care taken in depicting the manches or exaggerated sleeve-lengths then-fashionable on the musicians. Of particular interest is the process by which the yellow/gold color of glass was made:

Mr. Plumb tells me that the yellow to orange tones here were produced by ...using the stain to colour robes, hair etc. Yellow-stain became known in Europe from the early 14thC - its first dated use is in Normandy. It was used in a window in York Minster in the early 14thC and it rapidly became a tool of the glass painter since it obviated the need to cut a small piece of yellow pot-metal glass each time and it allowed even difficult shapes to be easily depicted

Here is another example of Kettlethorpe glass at Messingham -- the Harrowing of Hell, again featuring architectural motifs, musicians (fiddling whilst Hell burns?!) and vivid colours.

Detail from The Harrowing... with more musicians!

Finally, we have this image of St. John and his Eagle.

UPDATE: Below is a photo Roger took of what is apparently the sole remnant of interior carved decorative stonework from the medieval church at Kettlethorpe, as referenced above. It is a corbel of an angel holding a shield with the English royal arms and dates from the 15th century. Thus did Katherine's descendants work to remind everyone who entered the church just how closely allied were the Swynfords with the royal family.

Today is St. Catherine of Alexandria's Feastday!

2008-11-25T17:01:00.000-08:00

15th c. Sarum Use Book of Hours
As G L Harriss noted in the opening page of his biography of Henry Beaufort, this fascination we have with our birthdays is a relatively recent phenomenon (Henry apparently not only knew his own but reportedly celebrated it as well, which is why Harriss brings up the point!). Instead, what people tended to celebrate was the feast day of their patron or namesake saint.

This post is about Katherine Roet's name-saint, Catherine of Alexandria, who was reportedly a noblewoman who converted to Christianity in the early years of the fourth century of the common era,and then made the bad move of converting others, including the Emperor's wife and the good pagan officials who tried to show her the error of her spiritual ways.

Things like this never augur well for the ancient martyrs of the church, some of whom may or may not have even existed. The author of the thesis which can be found at the above title link notes:

...the fictiveness of the legends is indicated by the numerous similarities within the genre. The biographies of numerous saints draw on a limited number of stock characters, standard plots, and conventional incidents. Violent confrontations, miraculous escapes, and inventive ways of inflicting pain and death are major features of the genre... This use of repetition, however, communicated a religious 'truth': that all saints are, indeed, the same in that they all live a life of holiness based on the example of Christ's life.

Indeed, if it's graphic depiction of sadistic violence that you're looking for, you needn't go any further than Jacob de Voragine's Golden Legend aka Lives of the Saints. Of Catherine's martyrdom, de Voragine has this to say, that the Emperor, after Catherine refuses to become his female #2,:

...commanded that she should be despoiled naked and beaten with scorpions, and so beaten to be put in a dark prison, and there was tormented by hunger by the space of twelve days...

When Catherine still won't submit to the Emperor's no doubt considerable personal charms (and this seems to be one of those running themes for female martyrs -- it's always that they won't submit sexually to some heathen), he threatens her with still more bodily harm, to which she reportedly replies:

Tarry not to do what torments thou wilt, for I desire to offer to God my blood and my flesh like as he offered for me; he is my God, my father, my friend and mine only spouse

This really did her in, and the Emperor commands that his chief henchman

make four wheels of iron, environed with sharp razors, cutting so that she might be horribly all detrenched and cut in that torment, so that he might fear the other christian people by ensample of that cruel torment. And then was ordained that two wheels should turn against the other two by great force, so that they should break all that should be between the wheels... then the sergeants brought her out of the city and erased off her paps with tongs of iron, and after smote off her head

Rape, sadistic violence, inventive use of razors and ordinary wheels, and crude mastectomies -- the inventive devices may well change but the rest is pretty standard fare for the stories of the early female martyrs.

14th c. Oxford Cathedral Lawrence OP photostream on Flickr
.Fast forward to medieval England. St. Catherine becomes an increasingly popular saint. By the mid-twelfth century she has a chapel dedicated to her at Bury St. Edmund's, and in the thirteenth century she has a manorial chapel in Whaplode (Lincs.) as well as a chapel in Lincoln Cathedral itself, which also boasted two relics of the saint: a finger kept in a long purse decorated with pearls as well as the curious relic of a section of chain with which Catherine is sometimes said to have bound the devil. (Walsh, Christine. The Cult of St Katherine of Alexandria in Early Medieval Europe, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, pp. 123; 134-5).

By Katherine Swynford's time, Catherine of Alexandria, often identified in manuscripts and stained glass depictions by or with her signature symbol of a spiked wheel, had entered a super-pantheon of 14 I believe Catholic saints who were the subject of increasing entreaties by victims of the Black Death, which is said to have decimated Europe's population by at least one-third.

St Mary's Saxon Church, Deerhurst.

Catherine's wheel was further understood to associate with spinners (or, in the case of women, spinsters, as the -ster ending often denoted a female of a profession, whereas the -er ending indicated a male of the profession. From this we get our surnames of Brewer as well as Brewster; Webber as well as Webster, etc.), lace-makers, and wheel-wrights. She furthermore was a favorite saint of unmarried women 25 years of age or older (now we know where we get the term spinster, right?!), one of the few positive examples of an educated woman (medieval women could not attend the new universities that were popping up across medieval Europe), and I believe I've read that both in England as well as at Katherine Roet's sister's hometown of St. Waudru, Mons, St. Catherine's feast day was a day off for students attending school.

By Queen Catherine of Aragon's time (early/mid-16th Century), the Cult of St. Catherine had grown to encompass the making of Cattern Cakes (carroway-spiced things) and choir boys preaching sermons and begging for money.

How this relates to Katherine Swynford -- well, she may well have been born sometime in November of a year we don't have even a clue. Then there's the novelist Seton's portrayal of how Katherine Swynford came by her coat of arms... I'd quote it if I had the book handy, but it's a nice little moving scene in which John of Gaunt, already taken with La Swynford, invents the double canting coat idea of Catherine wheels for a Katherine Swynford -- doubly punning in that Roet = Wheel in Latin, Katherine's name being, well, Catherine, and St. Catherine's symbol being a spiked wheel.

Le Puy Cathedral, Auvergne, France, Sacred Destinations' Photo Stream on Flickr

A few other bits of trivia: the Church apparently liked playing a musical chairs sort of game in assigning the feast day for this particular St. Catherine (why??? I don't know...); also, poor St. Catherine of Alexandria is among those saints who received some sort of demotion in 1969 (but is in good company with the revered St. Christopher, who also got demoted) when her feast day was taken off the Church's calendar. Also, among the voices Jeanne d'Arc heard -- yup, St. Catherine of Alexandria (bonus points to anyone who knows that Henry Beaufort presided over her execution).

Oh, and by the way, there was at least one other St. Catherine -- that of Sienna, who was a contemporary of Katherine Swynford, who left rather alot of writings behind and who, at least to this modern and non-religious eye, had a most bizarre concept of the composition of her wedding ring with the Messiah figure. Or am I getting the two confused again???

Welcome to Kettlethorpe

2008-08-01T16:59:00.001-07:00

For Coleby: the soil is hard and stony, and uncultivated because of its barrenness, and the dovecot and windmill are in ruins...

For Kettlethorpe: The Manor, the meadow of which is overflowed by the waters of Trent in ordinary years...

Katheryn Roet must surely have wondered what had she gotten herself into as her gaze wandered across the landscape of her new Lincolnshire home. The broad sweep of nearly uniformly flat and unkempt oat fields abutting against the perpetually clogged waters of the nominally navigatory river Trent and the Roman-constructed FossDyke was a far cry from the rich forests which encircled the urban lowlands cities that were home to her celebrated ancestors, the Lords of Roeulx.

The teenaged and likely orphaned new bride of Sir Hugh Swynford could at least console herself with remembrances of her family's proud history during the lengthy periods in which she found herself alone at Kettlethorpe, or away attending upon the Lady of her husband's Lord, the great John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, son of the king himself. At the time of Katherine's marriage, which occurred perhaps as early as 1363 or 1364,1 England and her residents had perhaps begun to feel a xenophobic resentment against the many Hainaulters whom their Queen, Philippa of Hainault, had brought with her and established in new careers in a foreign land upon her marriage to England's Edward III in 1327. Initially welcomed due to the strong political alliance advantage offered by Philippa's father, Count William of Hainault, and the willingness of Hainaulter knights to fight on England's behalf against her nuisance enemy to the north, Scotland, the native Hainaulters and their perhaps English-born offspring eventually became of considerably less usage to the English following William's death in 1337, the later death of his son, also named William, in 1345, and the perfidy of Philippa's uncle, John of Hainault, who turned on the English and refused to help Philippa obtain her rightful share of her father's titles and lands in favor of her sister, Marguerite.

While Philippa herself would forever enjoy the love of her adopted country, what were the English to do with Philippa's many, now relatively useless, Hainaulter transplants? Some, like the famous chronicler Jean Froissart, would leave England shortly before Philippa's death, changing political affiliations as well, never to return. Others, like Katherine's own father, Gilles du Roeulx dit Payne de Roet, would play the tricky game of serving multiple masters and mistresses, moving seemingly seamlessly between the English royal court, as the first cited King of Arms of Guyenne, and as the hereditary positionvii of Master of the Household for Marguerite of Bavaria (Philippa's sister). Still others, such as Walter Mauny and Lewis Robessart, would integrate entirely into English life, leaving their Hainaulter lives behind. The likely English-born Katherine found herself in a different category: forever remembered as a foreigner who likely never saw a land other than England.

As the new Lady of Kettlethorpe, Katherine would have found herself at the center of a small medieval village, dominated by the lord's manor house itself and the local church around which had sprung the ancient settlement of Kettlethorpe. Katherine and Hugh's manor home, sadly no longer extant, but doubtless located near to the spot of the present-day Kettlethorpe Hall, would have been but a short visual and walking distance from the parish Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, its grand main tower dominating the largely flat landscape, and from Kettlethorpe Katherine could see for miles around the largely agrarian Lincolnshire lands; so little has changed that, for the most part, today's Kettlethorpe landscape is much as it was in Katheryn's time.

(Aerial shot of Kettlethorpe)

(Kettlethorpe's Gatehouse Remnant)

© Copyright Richard Croft and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Licence.

Much of Lincolnshire was land reclaimed from the sea and such tidal rivers as the Trent, Witham, and others. As was the case with Nile delta lands, land reclaimed from Lincolnshire waters possessed areas rich in alluvial soil, which made the area ideal for settlement and farming. To do so required the construction of navigatory waterways, such as the Roman FossDyke, which allowed the transportation of locally-produced Lincolnshire goods, such as wool, grain and hides, to local ports such as that at Boston, and provided for the importing of such necessities as fish (fresh-salted as well as dried), wine, lead and ironxiv.

(Roger Joy's photo of the Foss Dyke)

Well, there goes THAT theory!

2008-07-06T15:37:00.000-07:00

I've previously argued (somewhere here in the blog, no doubt, but, certainly in my FMG article) that the family of Roeulx adapted their arms from the comital house of Hainault to which they were related.

Perhaps not.

From the time of the signing of the Treaty of Peronne [1256], the arms of Hainaut had already, in fact, been altered from three chevrons to the rampant lion of Flanders to signify the claim of the Avesnes branch of the family. Then in 1280, in an act that singularly demonstrates the use of genealogy as a means of manipulating // collective memory, Jean II d'Avesnes, to affirm his rights as count of Flanders, exhumed his father's corpse, which he paraded from town to town throughout the territories. He had a new funeral monument constructed, with sculptured figures of his father and mother, each displaying their armorial shields (a rampion lion, sable, on gold for his father), which he setup in the middle of the choir of the Dominican church in Valenciennes...In 1289 an uneasy peace finally appears to have been concluded, and Jean II d'Avesnes went on to inherit the counties of Holland, Zeeland and Luxembourg. When his title passed to his son in 1304, three lions, one for each of his new counties, joined the lion of Hainaut-Flanders on the shield.

--Sealed in Parchment: Rereadings of Knighthood in the Illuminated Manuscripts of Chretien de Troyes. (Hindman, Sandra; 1994: University of Chicago Press).

This would seem to coincide with the finding of Roeulx arms of Or three lions rampant gules given for Eustache V du Roeulx (1221- 1283) in the Wijnbergen armourial (http://perso.numericable.fr/briantimms2/wijnbergen/wnhainault.htm). But, there goes the theory that the Roeulx family's arms were derivative of their ancient familial connection with the Counts of Hainault!

However, there's an interesting story behind all this dreary discussion of how many lions, what colors were they, and why lions should eventually trump chevrons -- while we may today, when thinking of medieval Hainault, consider it a pastoral backwater of European politics, the area seemed to be teeming with political disputes and back-stabbing relatives.

Baldwin of Flanders, Emperor of Constantinople, died in 1206, leaving two daughters: Jeanne (left), who took the title of Countess of both Flanders and Hainault, and Margaret (below), who was consigned to the care of, and eventually marriage to, one of her mother's relatives, Bossaert or Bouchard d'Avesnes. Margaret and Bouchard had two or three children, and the sisters Margaret and Jeanne seem to have had a falling-out over Jeanne's not sharing the inheritance (a situation that would be later repeated when Count William of Hainault ran out of male heirs which resulted in Philippa of Hainault eventually losing her part of the patrimony when her sister, Marguerite, grabbed it all). At some point, apparently, Jeanne tried to have her sister's marriage annulled on the grounds that Bouchard had received the subdiaconate of Tournai. Pope Innocent III, while condemning the marriage, is stated to have stopped just shy of annulling the marriage itself. Bouchard seems to have gone to Rome in an attempt to remedy the situation and, in his absence, Jeanne compelled her sister Margaret to marry William II of Dampierre, by whom she had sons William III and Guy Dampierre. Eventually, Jeanne dies, childless, after two marriages, and thereupon ensues a struggle for the lands of Flanders and Hainault, which had previously been united but now were separated by the warring factions of Margaret's eldest sons from her two marriages.

One would think that, after everything Margaret had been through (what with her parents going off on Crusade and never coming back, her sister meddling in her marital matters AND stealing her part of her inheritance), she would have felt a greater sense of justice and fair play with respect to her children from her first marriage; however, Margaret did everything she could to deny them any inheritance whatsoever. Indeed, when King Louis IX of France took it upon himself to be arbiter in the matter of the feuding half-brothers, decreeing that John d'Avesnes (son of the first marriage) should have Hainault while William III Dampierre would receive Flanders, Margaret promptly relinquished Flanders to William but refused to hand over Hainault to her first-born. The brothers went to war -- again -- only this time John d'Avesnes managed to convince William of Holland to enter the fray on his side; Hainault was seized and put under John d'Avesnes' control.

Margaret again tried to take Hainault away from her son, this time inviting the French king's brother, Charles of Anjou, to militarily press her preference for the line of her second husband. However, when the French king returned from Crusade, he persuaded his brother to butt out and control over Hainault was held once again by John d'Avesnes, and Flanders and Hainault remained separately ruled for a while.

One wonders what holiday get-togethers were like :-/ Somehow, a few scenes from The Lion in Winter come to mind...

Katherine Swynford, the movie?

2008-04-03T12:49:00.000-07:00

Don't look too closely or you'll see examples of really bad photoshopping (well, actually, pixelmatoring). Starring Liam Neeson (John of Gaunt), Patrick McGoohan (Edward III), Helen Mirren (Alice Perrers), Kevin McKidd (Hugh Swynford), Emma Thompson (Katheryn Swynford), Robin Williams (Geoffrey Chaucer), Sophie Marceau (Constance of Castille), and Kerry Condon (Blanche of Lancaster) -- some chosen with careful consideration, others simply because there already existed good images of them that were handy. The music is 'O Fortuna' from Carl Orf's _Carmina Burana_, which I believe was composed in the 1930s to medieval songs/poems (anyone who watched Boorman's _Excalibur_ will recognize the tune). Imagery is from Rob Roy, Excalibur, two versions of Henry V, Brannagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Ivanhoe, Kingdom of Heaven and the Duchy of Lancaster.

<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRuclW44cY0

I almost forgot to add -- the typeface used in the movie is "Luxeuil Miniscule" which is a custom font designed by Andrew Meit meitnik@bellsouth.net and used under license (the only thing in the movie which is used under license!).

Katherine Swynford F Fiction

2008-03-12T21:55:00.000-07:00

Here's my bit of fan fiction, in response to someone on the Yahoo Katherine Swynford discussion group asking about casting/scripting with respect to the Savoy:

=================================

I agree'th entirely, m'lady!

Why, I have the fondest memories of running about the Savoy in me' barefeet... dodging little Johnny B's odd arrows. Sly little devil... but he's MY little devil-spawn, and m'Lord loveth him greatly! My Johnny-B makes little Tommy Chaucer cry and cling to his momma's gown, which doesn't please HER lady, the high and mighty Duchess Constance, but she's hardly the countenance of contentment in any case, despite surrounding herself with fools aplenty!

You go, my devil-spawn! Can we helpeth you find some magikal substance to dip your arrows in? Something to keep her from bearing a live male heir perhaps? I maketh such good money from announcing to the king her pitiable female offspring...

Ahh, never the mind. Constance is pathetic enough without my earthly intervention, dismissing her wretched *supposed* crown, of course! Damn! Why can't my Lord remember that she is bastard seed indeed? And that I am not? I have *all kinds of lands* that were, on paper, ceded back the the Count of Hainault.. and we weren't even bastard-born!

That little bitch is but her awful father's bastard daughter of his mistress. Indeed -- imagining herself legitimated solely because her father could buy it so!

Why can't it be so for my beautiful bevy of Beauforts?

Indeed, I decided to dismiss her entirely from my mind, if not m'lord's bed! I was just telling Hawise that, accordingly, we need to up the narcotic content in the nightly ale we serve...

Hawise said, "Our guests -- they'll all think we've gone right daft! You've already seen how lecherous Mr. Geoffrey gets when he's had a draght or two and is eyeing our poor chambermaid Mistress Cecelia! "

"Ahhhh, yes, little Cecelia." I said. "The little Champagne cocktail as it were. Were it not for the great love I bear my
dear sister Philippa, and thus forgive her for letting people think that I am the older hag of a sibling, I'd let Geoffrey loose on the little tart and see how fast it would taketh her to land a suit against Geoffrey for his disagreeable lecherous conduct. Miller's Tale indeed! Autobiography, anyone? But, forsooth! Then we'd have another brat to feed, and Tommy Chaucer's brat enough for three!" I said.

"Either they've more than enough or not nearly enough, and I'm betting on the latter!" I declared most decisively to dear Hawise, who bowed in acquiescence and went scurrying about to find the seductive dark liquid substance.

However, Hawise continued to cower, thinking of the brutal lecture "the Duchess" would impose, asking "won't she" [the Devil Duchess -- "DD" -- I liketh that!] "be afrighted that we'll be inviting the devil himself into our midst with this devil-bodied ale?"

"Yes -- that why she needs a double shot in hers," I said with my most sinister countenance. "And one for
her little dwarf, too!" I added. "My Lord and I will be most virginal tonight with our drink, make certain
of it!" I added.

"Oh, and Mork, I mean, Geoffrey, won't be needing any
viagra tonight."

'Nighty-'night!

Scribe Judy

More Debate on Paon de Ruet/Roet

2008-03-11T08:28:00.000-07:00

Douglas Richardson has started it off his post:

Dear Newsgroup ~
Recently while doing a Google Search, I encountered a reference dated
c.1353 to a certain "Sir Paunettus" who is styled "kinsman" to Edward
the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England and
Queen Philippe of Hainault [see Register of Edward the Black Prince, 4
(1933): 73 (Sir Paunettus styled "the prince's kinsman.") This item
may be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwnAAAAMAAJ&q=Paunettus&dq=Paunettu...
It appears that the modern editor was unable to identify "Sir
Paunettus." But surely he is the same person as Sir Paonet de Ruet,
who was the father of Katherine de Ruet, the well known mistress/wife
of John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, the prince's
brother. If so, this record would serve as an important clue to the ancestry of
Sir Paonet de Ruet.

This set off a small flurry of discussions (you can imagine that I was in the midst of it all, seeking answers!).

Hopefully we'll hear more on the supposedly fraudulent grant of arms by an unnamed Guyenne King of Arms bearing wheels and a pierced mullet for difference to the brothers Andrewe (and why it is thought to be fraudulent).

Additionally, poster Peter Stewart noted just now much a de differs from a du (and how many of the rest of us would know such a thing -- I know I don't!):

He writes (speaking of Gallica's ,online Froissart):

Apart from Paon and Catherine, the indexs list Huon de Roët and Jean de Roët
on p. 38, then Philippe de Roët (Chaucer's wife) on the next page followed
by "Roulx, Rolx, Rues", the various spellings used by Froissart for the
famous noble family in Hainaut. This does not suggest that he considered
"Paon de Ruet" a member of the same family. The information on Fastré du
Roulx (note the "du", meaning the designation was "of Le Roulx" whereas "de"
for Paon's surname indicates he was from a place called "Ruet" without the
definite article) ends with a brief mention of the extinction of the
seigneurs of Roulx in 1337, i.e. during the lifetime of Paon. This strongly
suggests that, if he was related at all (which appears far from likely to
me), this was almost certainly through an illegitimate connection.

Another De La Croice

2008-01-12T22:12:00.000-08:00

This one is John de la Croice, "of Wygan; " a debtor to the tune of forty pounds in 1314 (Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward II. London: 1893, p. 103). VCH Berkshire reports that a family of the same surname "was prominent" in BASILDON in the fourteenth century, and may have given their name to a manor known as CROOKS AND DUNTS, derived from "the family of Atte Crouch or De la Croice, which was prominent here in the 14th century, (fn. 132) and it was doubtless held afterwards by a person called Dent, Dunt or Dunk, of whom no record appears. The estate held by John de Cruce in the time of Edward I, and Edmund de la Crouche in 1331, (fn. 133) may probably be taken as the origin of this manor, but there is no record of courts." (Victoria County History: A History of the County of Berkshire: Volume 3 [P.H. Ditchfield and William Page (eds)], 1923, pp. 457-463: 'Parishes: Basildon', A History of the County of Berkshire: Volume 3 (1923), pp. 457-463. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43246. Date accessed: 13 January 2008.).

Despite the pronounced prominence of said family, using the "croice" spelling, one repeatedly comes up empty-handed in looking for information on the family that briefly held Kettlethorpe between early-mid 14th century Swynford ownership of it. A search over VCH using that spelling comes up empty, much as it does on the web.

The Problem of the Roeulx Inheritance

2008-01-07T18:10:00.000-08:00

Back to the Weir book...

Weir places great faith in the document issued by Henry IV in which the monarch gives his personal assurances as to Thomas Swynford's legitimate birth, necessary because, as it is stated, certain persons in Hainault doubt said lawful birth and are thus denying him access to his inheritance through his mother. The 1411 document, reprinted in Excerpta Historica: Or, Illustrations of English History, by Samuel Bentley (1833), pp. 157-8, is as follows:

"The King to all and singular the faithful in Christ, to whom these present letters shall come, greeting, and to these presents be given undoubted faith. We believe it to be a pious deed and acceptable to God, and it is meet for the royal dignity, to cause to be enlightened by the testimony of truth those minds which are obscured by the darkness of doubt. Hence it is that divers inheritances in the country of Hainault having lately descended to our beloved and trusty Knight, Sir Thomas Swynford, from the most renowned lady Katherine de Roelt, deceased, late Duchess of Lancaster, his mother, certain persons of those parts doubting that the said Thomas, son and heir of the aforesaid Katherine, was begotten in lawful matrimony, have not, by reason of such doubt, permitted the same Thomas to possess the aforesaid inheritances, or to rec eive the farms, rents or issues thereof. Wherefore be it known unto you all, that the aforesaid Thomas is the son and heir of the aforesaid Katherine, begotten and born of the same Katherine in lawful wedlock, and that a certain writing of the said Thomas to these our present letters annexed, sealed with the seal of arms of the said Thomas, is his deed, and that he and his father and all his paternal ancestors have in all times past borne the said arms and used the like seal. And this we do by these presents make known unto all whom it may concern. In witness of all and singular which premises, we have caused these our letters to be made patent. Given in our Palace of Westminster, under the testimony of our great seal, on the fifth day of October."

On the face of it, the letters patent are fairly straight-forward and thus Weir's faith seems well-justified. Maybe it is. But I'm not certain. It claims that Thomas was heir to lands in Hainault descending from his mother, Katheryn Swynford; and that officials in Hainault are not allowing him to take his inheritance due to their belief that he is not the legitimately-born heir of his mother.

For Weir, this document is the linchpin for a series of genealogical/other assumptions. It is the reason, for instance, that the early 15th Century Surrey brass of Isabella (nee ??) Carrew, showing three Catherine wheels, is not the shield of a Roet daughter. Because, she claims, Katheryn and Philippa's brother, Walter, could not have left an heir/ess because only Thomas Swynford ever seems to have been a claimant of his grandfather's. Okay, well, that may theoretically rule out any possible daughter of Walter Roet, but what about Thomas Chaucer, whose brass and monument also displays three Catherine wheels? If Isabella Roet died a canoness, and Walter Roet, her and Philippa and Katheryn's brother, died without an heir, then Philippa and Katheryn should have been co-heiresses and, hence, Thomas Chaucer should have been an equal claimant with his cousin Thomas Swynford, who never bore arms of Catherine wheels at all (unlike Thomas Chaucer's monument, though Thomas Chaucer himself never personally bore any arms other than those of Chaucer).

And it's not like Thomas Chaucer would have been one to have passed up a landed inheritance. A knighthood for which he would have had to pay, yes; foreign lands and honours? Probably not. And, even if he would have, his daughter, Alice Chaucer, eventual Duchess of Suffolk -- she NEVER would have done so; especially she who copiously adorned not only her father and mother's monumental brass and tomb with the so-called Roet arms of gules, three Catherine wheels or, but also the entire Ewelme chapel and her own monument. The argument just doesn't seem likely from anyone who's familiar with either the career of Thomas Chaucer or of Alice, Duchess of Suffolk. Especially the latter.

This business of Thomas Swynford in 1411 suddenly claiming a Hainault inheritance -- It's an odd claim to say the least. For more than one reason. Let's start with the easiest reason, namely, that Thomas was somehow the illegitimate issue Katheryn Swynford. Not one of the Beauforts, mind you -- they were legitimated by both Pope and English Parliament and hence was Thomas believed to have been the illegitimate offspring of Katheryn by John of Gaunt, the claim/belief would have been patently false. It is this plainly false notion that Samuel Bentley espouses in trying to explain the cause of the letters patent, namely, that, so ill-blown was Katheryn's repute, that her distant relatives/other Hainault officials were likely of the impression that Thomas Swynford was her illegitimate son by John of Gaunt. Even though all the *other* illegitimate children of Katheryn by John of Gaunt were legitimated. Did Gaunt have something against Thomas?

His will reveals otherwise, where he is described as "a mon tres chere bachelier" Monsr. Thomas Swyneford. Blanche Swynford is not mentioned in John of Gaunt's will (she might have pre-deceased him). Neither is Margaret Swynford mentioned (she did NOT pre-decease Gaunt, but there exists the possibility that she was not the daughter of Katheryn and Hugh, though neither Weir nor I buy this). But Thomas Swynford is mentioned. And again, he is not mentioned as Gaunt's son, as are the Beauforts mentioned in his will with the appellation my dear son and my dear daughter.

Indeed, nobody anywhere in extant contemporary accounts ever accused Thomas Swynford of illegitimate birth. This supposed illegitimacy was, for example, not raised at his father's inquisition post mortem. Nor was it raised at Thomas' own proof of age. In fact, we have no concrete record that it was ever raised at all, except for this odd document addressed to no one in particular.

Why wasn't it addressed to Hainault's Countess/Empress Margaret? Why wasn't it addressed to anybody in particular in Hainault? Should we believe that Henry IV was sufficiently ill-informed as to whom in particular this very particular declaration should be addressed? That seems unlikely.

And why did Thomas/Henry IV feel the need to state the obvious in 1411? Does the timing matter?

I think it does...

More on Swynfords & Kettlethorpe

2007-12-18T21:31:00.000-08:00

So, here we have a new, improved chronology of the Swynfords and Kettlethorpe ownership:

1311/12 -- heir of Thomas Swynford (C 241/77/24; Thomas described as 'now dead').

1328 -- John Swynford, son of Thomas Swynford (C 241/99/111)

1331 -- William de la Croice, "lord of Kettlethorpe" (C 241/101/8)

1349 -- Thomas Swynford, knight (C 241/126/176)

What happened between 1328 and 1331? What happened between 1331 and 1349?

Later, in 1468, another Thomas Swynford, grandson of Hugh and Katherine Swynford, is described as 'of Kettlethorpe' and as an 'esquire' who is indebted to the tune of £30 to a London merchant (C 241/251/23); by 1472 he is indebted to yet another London merchant for the same amount (£30), a loan which was taken out in 1465 (C 241/254/61). At some time between 1472 and 1483, Kettlethorpe apparently falls into the hands of perhaps the half-brother of this last Thomas Swynford, a William Swynford; William is dead by 1483 and his death apparently sets off a struggle for the Kettlethorpe inheritance.

William Swynford married a Beatrice FitzWilliam; she married secondly a Richard Woderofe (or Woodruff), who is in turn mentioned in a ca. 1504-1515 suit pitting a William Meryng, knight, against Richard and Beatrice, his wife, late the wife of William Swynford regarding detention of deeds relating to the manor of Kettlethorpe and land there. (C 1/335/81). William Meryng's daughter-in-law, Anne, continues the fight for Kettlethorpe in the period of 1515-1518 against Richard Bassett, knight, Richard Vernon the younger, Thomas Babyngton of Dethick, Godfrey Fuljambe, and others (C 1/428/4) upon her consummation of her marriage.

Ca. 1518 - 1529 the battle shifts to one with a William Meryng, defendant, and John Monson, esquire, plaintiff, over the manor and advowson of Kettlethorpe, and lands there and in Newton, Fenton, Laughterton, Torksey, and Hardwick, late of Thomas Swyndford, knight (C 1/540/33). In this suit, Monson is acting on behalf of a George Beaumont, and his wife, Jane. This is probably related to an inheritance squabble as Beaumont's wife, Jane, has as her maiden name PAUNCEFOTE, which is of interest in that Jane's mother was apparently the Margaret Swynford who was daughter to Thomas Swynford and Elizabeth Beauchamp (whose marriage was notoriously arranged by Thomas Swynford's relative, Cardinal Henry Beaufort). After the death of Margaret's brother, Thomas Swynford, who seems to have died young, Margaret became heiress to the Swynford patrimony, which thus passed to her daughter Joan/Jane Pauncefote who married George Beaumont.

A Tale of Two Thomases

2007-12-04T17:04:00.000-08:00

Last post I discussed the concurrent existence of two Thomas Swynfords, one of whom did not bear boar's heads on his arms. This particular Thomas Swynford, in 1327, was High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, although his seat was in Bedford. His arms were recorded as paly of six, argent and sable (http://met.open.ac.uk/genuki/big/eng/BKM/sheriffs/sheriffs2.html).

This articulation of the arms of Swynford would seem to indicate that a division in the family took place, with one branch continuing to bear various representations of boars/boars' heads, with another taking on the arms of the Burgate (Suffolk) family (possibly a younger son marrying an heiress?). This Thomas Swynford is not the last Swynford to bear a paly of six, argent and sable, but he may well be the first. While a few other Swynfords are Lord of the Burgate estate of Suffolk, they all seem to bear some version of boars' heads: Sir John Swynford (1315) and Sir Robert Swynford (1340) are both on record as being lord of Burgate but bearing variations of boars' heads in their arms; that earlier Lords of Burgate bore a paly of six, argent and sable, seems indicated by the seals of Sir Peter Burgate (1311) and Sir Richard de Burgate (1343):

Of these, Richard de Burgate may be identical with the individual of the same name who is named in a list of individuals in the Odiam Hundred subsidy of 1/20th of 1327 for Liss, Hampshire ((PRO E 179/173/4). Peter de Burgate of 1311 may be either the same Peter de Burgate, who in 1272 was granted charter to hold a market at the manor (or he may be the son of this particular Peter); in any case, the Peter who was granted the right to have a market is known to have had a son named Robert de Burgate, who was holding said market on 1 November 1286 (GAZETTEER OF MARKETS AND FAIRS TO 1516) In any case, arms of a paly of six, argent and some other color may wel originate with the these two lords who held the Burgate, Suffolk, estate of the early 14th century.

It would seem that, at some point between 1311 and 1315, the de Burgate family may have terminated in a sole heiress who married into the Swynfords of Huntingdon, for a John de Swynford's ca. 1315 seal has been identified with the Burgate estate. This John is then likely related to the Sir Robert de Swynford (although perhaps not directly) who held the estate in 1340:

Of these, John de Swynford, knight, is perhaps identical with the John de Swinford, knight, who was the creditor of 20 pounds to a Suffolk knight named Henry de Cockfield ca. 1315 ( C 131/171/2K ). That he is related to the Hunts. branch of the Swynford family is suggested by the lack of a chevron as well as the tinctures; note the similarity to the arms of a John de Swynford in the reign of Edward II for Hunts.:

The Hunts. tinctures can be confirmed by comparison with mid-15th. C. heraldry in the parish church of St. Andrew, Great Staughton, of which

The north chapel, probably built about 1455, has a blocked three-light east window; on the north side is a shallow bay having a three-light window in its north wall and very small square-headed lights at the sides, and arched over with a panelled vault having three bosses carved with shields, (fn. 261) viz.: (1) in the centre, [Argent] on a cross [Sable] six escallops [Or] (Stonham), impaling [Argent] a horse-barnacle [Sable] (Barnack); (2) [Gules] a fesse dancette between seven crosses croslet [Or] (Engaine), impaling [Argent] two pales [Sable] (should be paly, for Burgatt); (3) [Argent] a cross engrailed [Vert] (Noon), impaling [Argent] three boars' heads couped [Gules] (Swinford). ('Parishes: Great Staughton', A History of the County of Huntingdon: Volume 2 (1932), pp. 354-369. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42514&strquery=Swinford. Date accessed: 13 November 2007.)

For St. Andrew, Great Staughton, it is suggested that a Robert (d. 1455) Stoneham married a Katherine Burgatt, thus accounting for the Burgate arms; however the inclusion of red boars's heads on a silver shield for Swynford tallies well enough with the Burgate heraldry.

The arms of the Sir Robert de Swynford, Lord of Burgate, is more similar to the arms borne by Sir Hugh Swynford and his line in that they utilize a chevron; it would seem that temp. the same time as the arms of Sir John de Swynford, of Hunts., above, another Swynford line of Hunts. differentiated themselves by bearing argent on a chevron sable three swines' heads couped or (Jenyns' and Parly. Rolls). Their names were Norman and Sir Thomas de Swynford. Of Hunts. And you can see the similarity with those of Sir Thomas Swynford, son of Sir Hugh Swynford:

Getting back to the 'paly of six,' these arms were identified with the family of Swynford by the 16th C.; they were reproduced thus on the tomb of Lady Jane Ingleton (d. 1557) (along with the arms of Tyrrell anc Coggeshall) as well as in the great "Italian" window of Thornton College, dating from the 17th C.:

The Swynford paly can be seen in the top row, middle position.
Interestingly enough, the Ingleton brass is in Bucks., and identical to the arms of the 1327 Sheriff Thomas Swynford of Bucks. whose identity started this whole discussion. More than a few internet genealogy sites make the claim that a daughter of a William Swynford of Essex (variously given as Anna or Jane, b. abt. 1350) married a Sir Thomas Tyrrell, of Heron, Essex. That this Swynford daughter belongs to the 'paly of six' branch as opposed to the 'chevron' branch is underscored by finding the arms of Tyrrell to the left of those of the 'paly of six' Swynford in the 'Italian' window (the blue chevrons on silver with a red bordure -- engrailed??) as well as (in reverse, as it is a brass rubbing image) in the first quarter of the Ingleton arms, shown above to the left of the 'Italian' Window.

When did the division between the branches of the family Swynford occur? It's hard to say, but in the 13th C. the family seems to have been seated in Hunts., holding the lands of Stukeley in 1259. It then gets complicated, but finally ends with a part of the property, called Swynefordsmanere in Great Stukeley, being given/granted/inherited by one William Burgate in 1380:

By a 12th-century extent of the lands of Ramsey Abbey we find that Josceline de Stukeley held 2 hides and a virgate in Stukeley. These lands seem to have extended into Great Stukeley... Barnabas died without issue, leaving a widow Margery who afterwards married Norman Darcy. (fn. 38) Barnabas's heirs were his three sisters, Joan the wife of William le Waleys who died without issue in 1281, Alice who married William le Coynte and died in 1280 leaving a son and heir William le Coynte, and Mary who married Peter de Boweles (and left a son John de Boweles. In 1259 William le Waleys and Joan and William le Coynte and Alice conveyed their two-thirds of a messuage and 3 carucates of land in Stukeley to William de Swyneford and Margery his wife. William de Swyneford was imprisoned during the Barons' Wars as one of the king's enemies and in 1266 his lands in Stukeley were seized by the sheriff of Huntingdon. He was succeeded by John de Swyneford, and he by his son John (then aged four years) in 1332. Margaret de Swyneford, wife of Thomas FitzEustace, possibly a sister of John, died seised of a ruinous messuage and 240 acres of land in Stukeley of her own inheritance held of the Abbot of Ramsey in 1349. She left a daughter Joan and a kinswoman Eleanor, wife of William de Swyneford, who had a son Thomas, 15 days old, and daughters Isabel and Elizabeth. The Swyneford two-thirds fell to co-heirs and in 1368 were apparently conveyed by William Scot de Holbeach of Yaxley, fisher, and Emma his wife as a moiety of the manor of Great Stukeley which Thomas FitzEustace and Eleanor his wife held for the term of the life of Eleanor to Nicholas de Stukeley, Robert Waryn of Offord and other Stukeley trustees. It would seem that Thomas Fitz Eustace had married Eleanor the kinswoman and one of the heirs of his former wife Margery Swyneford. Seisin of a portion of the Swyneford property called 'Swynefordsmanere' in Great Stukeley was in 1380 given to William Burgate. ('Parishes: Little Stukeley', A History of the County of Huntingdon: Volume 2 (1932), pp. 234-238. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42489. Date accessed: 06 December 2007.)

One naturally wonders whether this William de Burgate is identical with the William de Burgate who d. 1409 and is commemorated by a splendid double brass (along with Eleanor, his wife) at the parish church at Burgate, and whose arms were represented as a paly of six, argent and azure (_A Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller; or Topographical and Genealogical Collections, concerning that county._ Compiled by Augustine Page [and John Kirby]. Ipswich: Printed and published by Joshua Page: London: J. B. Nichols and Son, 1844 p. 455):

This and other, close-ups, of the tomb may be found here.

More Swynford Connections

2007-11-22T20:33:00.000-08:00

The A2A initiative is really a most remarkable thing!

Back in, say, 2003 or 2004 when I was working on my FMG article, there weren't many Swynford references to go on from the UK National Archives and, hence, on the basis of heraldry and a later Swynford marriage into the Drury's of Suffolk, I theorized that Hugh Swynford's father, Thomas, may have been the son or other heir of a Robert Swynford.

But, that was before anybody had even the faintest idea that Thomas Swynford wasn't the first Swynford owner of Kettlethorpe. Certainly R E G Cole, with his personal access to source documents, wasn't able to determine otherwise. But, on a lark, I decided to do with the A2A what I periodically do with respect to the web; that is, crawl it again for certain keywords ("Swynford" , "Kettlethorpe" , "Roeulx" , "Roet" ...). And this time I hit pay-dirt!

My previous entry details the finding of a previous Kettlethorpe owner named Thomas Swynford. This entry concerns another entry with some different Swynfords who may well be related, but perhaps not in the manner envisioned by Cole.

SC 8/226/11278

"Petitioners: Edmund de Swynford (Swinford).
Addressees: King.
Places mentioned: Harlaxton, Lincolnshire.
Other people mentioned: Walter de Kelby, escheator in Lincolnshire; John de Garreine (Warenne), earl of Suffolk; John Brewes; John [de Brewes], son and heir of John de Brewes; Norman de Swynford (Swinford).
Nature of request: Swynford requests a charter of pardon for the alienation of the manor of Harlaxton to him by Norman de Swinford without licence, and that he can have restitution of the manor as it has been taken into the king's hand and has been there for 7 years to his great impoverishment. It was found by Kelby that Warenne alienated the manor to Brewes without licence, whose son when he came of full age release all his right in it to Norman de Swinford.
Endorsement: Let Brewes, his wife and his friends and the keeper of the manor be called before the council to inform the court for the king if they know any reason for which the king should not remove his hand.
Covering dates: [1365]"

From other petitions, we can deduce that Norman is the son of an Edmund and Beatrice Swynford, and also that Norman held lands in Lincolnshire, specifically the manor of Harlaxton, which is the source of the issue in the above-referenced petition. From it and other petitions, it would seem that said Edmund and Norman were also related to the Hugh Swynford, but perhaps not in the same manner as suggested by Cole.

Per Cole:

Thomas Swynford m. Nichole Arderne
1. Hugh Swynford m. Katherine Roet
2. Anna (?) Swynford m. John de Brewes (jr)
3. Norman Swynford m. Margaret Trehampton m. John Brewes (sr).

Margaret Trehampton (whose family I believe donated some Lincolnshire tlass) had offspring by her first husband, John de Brewes (de Braose) sr. his son and heir, John de Brewes jr and, after John sr's death married Norman Swynford, who apparently grew accustomed to the holdings of the Brewes family, so much so that he obtained control over the estate by having jr declared an 'idiot' and, Cole says, sealed the deal by marring said idiot to his supposed sister, Anna Swynford, by whom John Jr. apparently possessed enough intelligence to beget a daughter, Margaret. Cole then suggests that Norman, by either Margaret Trehampton or his second wife, Eleanor, has a son, Sir John Swynford. John jr is later able to prove his sensibilities and eventually recovers his estate.

However, the newly-uncovered (by me, anyway) petition suggests that Norman was instead the son or other near relation of Edmund Swynford; that the two Normans are identical is suggested by the dealings with the third parties de Braose. Cole and Bentley (Exerpta Historica, pp. 152-9) both present information on Edmund and Norman Swynford and their relationships with de Brewes.

Another Thomas Swynford of Kettlethorpe?

2007-11-12T22:30:00.000-08:00

I was just searching through The National Archives and found reference to a Thomas Swynford, 'of Kettlethorpe', ... only, it's ca. 1311-12!

From other entries, this would seem to refer to Thomas Swynford, father of John Swynford and husband of Margaret Swynford, of Northamptonshire, and references the executors of said Thomas as John and Margaret, as well as a John Darcy.

The reference is C 241/77/24 and concerns the settling of an old debt of £8 loaned by said, deceased, Thomas de Swinford, of Kettlethorpe, made to a Richard de Nottingham. A John de Swinford, Margaret de Swinford, and a John Darcy are listed as the executors of Thomas' estate. Elsewhere I've found information that Thomas and Margaret were John's parents; the inclusion of Darcy may suggest that he was related by marriage to Thomas.

There's also a Simon Swynford, also of Lincoln (Dunston), ca. 1309 (SC 8/267/13324). Interestingly enough, he *also* has ties to the Darcy's, a "Robert de Arcy (Darcy)" who, as petitioner, "requests that he be granted the homage and service of Simon de Swynford for tenements that he holds from the king in Dunston which were extended to the value of 5 marks and which were Arcy's and his ancestors" (ibid).

38 years later another Thomas Swynford, quite possibly the father of Hugh, himself is the creditor of a loan for £13 6s. 8d to John de Cave of York (C 241/126/176).

It's tempting to identify this Thomas Swynford with that of another, who was Sheriff of Rutland, just two years earlier in 1347 (E 358/2) but, the problem is, there were at least two or more Thomas Swynfords contemporaneous of the period, holding the office of Sheriff for more than one county, and maybe one who wasn't sheriff of any county. Somewhere I've got the reference to show that at least one of the said Thomas Sheriff's bore not boars' heads but paly, argent and sable.

Gotta go dig for that, though.

Where are you?

2007-11-11T16:05:00.001-08:00

Scandalous Duchess: Roeulx Origins & Pesky Heraldry Problems

2007-10-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

I will begin my critique of the book here, in sequential order.

Beginning on the first page of the main body of text, page 3, Weir states:

Katherine possibly had noble or even royal connections through her mother, but claims that she was closely related through her father to the aristocratic lords of Roeulx cannot be substantiated... Since the twelfth century, the lords of Roeulx had prospered mightily... That Katherine shared a close kinship with the lords of Roeulx is doubtful on heraldic evidence alone -- or the lack of it.

Here Weir has clearly read my article for the Foundation for Medieval Geneaology on the subject, in which I made a heraldic argument against Payne Roet being the same as Gilles Roeulx (a tentative identification made by Mr. Lindsay Brook, also of the FMG) on the basis of very different heraldry for the Roeulx versus that which history has ascribed to Payne and Katherine Roet.

As I wrote in 2004,

Payne Roet is often assumed to have been a descendant of a collateral branch of the Lords of Roeulx of Hainault. The traditional argument has been that Payne Roet bore arms that were similar to those borne by the Hainault Lords of Roeulx, recorded by Rietstrap as gules, a trios roues d'arg (while those of the modern town of Le Roeulx are a lion passant holding a single silver wheel). The heraldic usage of a wheel for Roet is an example of a canting or punning coat of arms in which the heraldic device is a play on the name of the individual bearing the device; in this case, a single silver wheel for Roet/Roeulx/Ruet/Roelt, Latin for 'wheel.'

However, one problem with this argument of tying the Payne Roet family to a substantial Hainault patrimony is the finding of the Roeulx' of Hainault bearing not wheels for Roet but instead the lions of Hainault, for the family from whom they descended.

Based upon finding the arms of the Lords of Roeulx given as Or, three lions rampant, gules for Eustache V de Roeulx and his brothers (with appropriate marks of cadency) in the Wijnbergen Roll, Armorial de Gelre and the Armorial Lalaing rolls of arms for the 14th through 16th centuries, I concluded that, inasmuch as Payne Roet bore wheels instead of lions, he was likely not descended from the Lords of Roeulx. However, I am less certain now and am leaning towards the belief that Mr. Brook was quite possibly correct in his assertion that Payne Roet is identical with the Gilles Roeulx who was one of the last surviving brothers of the lordly Roeulx family.

While Weir is correct that the Roeulx family fortunes were indeed on the ascendency in the 12th through mid-13th centuries, as my article and other entries in this blog make clear, by the end of the 14th, the family fortunes had depreciated considerably, such that brother Fastre dies in pecuniary straits in 1331, with the bulwark if not entirety of the Roeulx family inheritance being sold back to the Count of Hainault in return for usufruct usage (see previous blog entries on the subject). If Hainault arms were tied to the land rather than the individual/family, there exists the possibility that Giles/Payne Roeulx/Roet, landless and quite possibly penniless upon joining the English royal service, was granted new arms by Edward III, showing the particularly English love for the punning, canting coat. In any case, if Edward III granted him knighthood, we would not necessarily expect to find him bearing new English arms identical to his family's old Hainault ones.

(There is, of course, one small problem with this idea, however -- The Warwickshire visitation that is said to have preserved description of the sole known personal seal of Payne Roet described it has having a pierced mullet mark of cadency, something he would have had no need for if the grant was a new grant of arms to him. Interestingly enough, his daughter's 1377 seal is said to have had the same cadency mark, which she later apparently dropped inasmuch as it does not appear on Dugdale's drawing of her tomb's heraldry. I am at a loss for a good explanation as to why the two incorporated the mark of apparent cadency, a system which had not yet been systematically developed and implemented in Payne's time).

The Problem: wheels, wheels and more wheels! (And, as we'll see later, maybe wheels that aren't really wheels but are...???) And they're all different! This makes any related heraldic argument not straightforward. As I mentioned in 2004, one 15th C. Harleian MS shows at the foot of the page is tricked a shield of gules with a silver wheel which is to be 'qwartly with Chawcrys.' The tomb of Geoffrey's son, Thomas, has heraldry displaying three plain gold wheels on a red field. The supposed Roet arms once seen painted on the ceiling of Old St. Paul's and described in the reign of Charles II were gules, three wheels argent, and Katherine herself left vestments to Lincoln Cathedral, some of which utilized silver plain wheels and other gold spiked wheels on a red background.

Speculation has been offered by others that the Old St. Paul's arms, found also in a window of the Divinity School of Oxford, represent perhaps those of a Roet Dean of St. Paul's. As Ms. Weir notes, however, the name is not to be found on a roll of Deans of St. Paul's. Fair enough (though it doesn't necessarily dismiss any other ecclesiastical potential Roet); however, Ms. Weir is not content to merely dismiss the idea that a son or other male heir of Payne (or Walter) Roet had an ecclesiastical connection with either the See of London or Old St. Paul's but goes on to further dismiss even Dingley's description of them:

It is intriguing to discover that a shield bearing what appears to be Paon's coat of arms, impaling the arms of the See of London ... was painted on the ceiling of Old St. Paul's. It was one of a number of painted shields placed there that have been dated to no later than 1525 and which were recorded in the reign of Charles by Thomas Dingley... the likelihood is that these arms were in fact ... misrepresented by Dingley." (p. 314, note 43).

This is indeed a curious heraldic argument inasmuch there aren't many heraldic charges that look like but in fact are not wheels. Moreover, we then have the additional problem of how to account for the same arms found at Oxford by a different antiquarian in a different century. Were they misrepresented as well? Ms. Weir acknowledges their finding but does not dismiss them as she does those reportedly found at Old St. Paul's.

Weir also sets great store by the accounting of Katherine's family as presented in various editions of Froissart's Chronicle. Again, Weir remarks:

That Katherine shared a close kinship with the lords of Roeulx is doubtful on heraldic evidence alone -- or the lack of it. Her family was relatively humble. The chronicler Jean Froissart, a native of Hainault, who appears to have been quite well informed on Katherine Swynford's background, states that Jean de Roet, who died in 1305 and was the son of one Huon de Roet, was her grandfather..." (p. 4)

However, I believe the tentative genealogy given for Roet in Froissart (and previously cited by A.S. Cook, as noted in my 2004 FMG article) is in fact supplied by his much later editor, Kervyn de Lettenhove, rather than by Froissart himself. And I would disagree with Ms. Weir's statement that ...Jean Froissart, a native of Hainault, ... appears to have been quite well informed on Katherine Swynford's background:

--1: The earlier passages that may refer to Payne Roet in Froissart were not written by him as an eyewitness per se but were rather continuations and further commentary on the earlier chronicle of Jean le Bel written years after the fact by collecting testimony of the old warriors whose memories may have grown old as well; and

--2: The significant fact that Jean Froissart (or Jean le Bel either, for that matter) doesn't really have anything concrete to say at all about Katherine's background other than that she was from a knightly family, was a foreigner, and was nothing like a great, landed English heiress or the heiress to a continental throne.

I have long wondered about this absence of specific commentary on Katherine's background by one who certainly should have known something. Froissart may not have been bodily present at the Seige of Calais, but he certainly had to have known of the family of Roeulx. And yet he failed to mention any supposed connection. I am much reminded of the scholarly debate regarding whether or not Thomas Chaucer was the son of the poet Geoffrey, and the failure of his friends and literary figures of the time to mention the connection.

On the one hand, the failure to mention an important family connection (in both cases) can reasonably be construed to indicate that there was no such connection: the persons in question were in a position to know of such a connection and yet do not state the obvious. However, there is an opposing point of view that argues the position of why should they have stated the obvious? Does every reference to current U.S. President George Bush remark upon his being the son of the previous U.S. President George Bush? Or is it well-understood that this is a familial connection that everybody already knows? I don't recall whether it was Martin B. Ruud who addressed this same 'failure to remark upon the obvious' in the case of Geoffrey and Thomas Chaucer, but the gist of the argument was that contemporaries routinely fail to remark upon the obvious.

Ahhh, yes.. I have located the paragraph in question. It is from Martin B. Ruud's investigation into the issue of whether Thomas Chaucer was indeed the son of the poet, or whether he was perhaps the bastard offspring of John of Gaunt's presumed liaison with Philippa Roet Chaucer, Katherine's sister. It makes for a delightful read as a serious argument made in full good humor, even if you should disagree with either its conclusion or applicability here:

It would be very nice if contemporaries of important people, or of people who some centuries later turn out to be important, would always ask themselves before putting pen to paper, "Now, what will Dryasdust four or five centuries hence wish to know about this man?" and write accordingly. But they never do, and unfortunately for the historian they probably never will. Contemporaries have a strange weakness for neglecting the obvious." (Ruud, p. 86).

Alison Weir's "Scandalous Duchess" book released

2007-10-18T21:21:00.000-07:00

Alison has found a wealth of information about this very passionate relationship and the massive royal family of the times...
--says BFK's Books/The BookFiend's Kingdom.

Others have noted the praise she has received for her 'meticulous research.'

It must be noted the difficulties Ms. Weir assuredly faced in assembling sufficient research in a two year period to crank out a nearly 300 page book on a woman who left nothing of her own thoughts behind for us to read.

Nearly all of the information we have on Katherine is transactional data -- grants made to her, loans she made, places she lived... imagine, if you will, that some 600 years hence someone is trying to write a biography of you: based upon the information in your credit report, your purchases as reported by your supermarket 'club card,' cell phone records, GPS traces and property records: How much would such a biographer really know about you as a human being?

I appreciate these difficulties faced as I have spent nearly 30 years doing just that. I should doubtless feel appreciative, too, that much of that, my, research turns up in various places in Weir's new book, entitled Katherine Swynford: The Story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess, which I have recently finished reading.

While I disagree with some of the positions which Ms. Weir has taken in this book, I am glad to see that Katherine has finally attracted a well-known author to help make her name and story better known to those residing outside of academia and Chaucerania: Jeannette Lucraft , of course, wrote the first groundbreaking non-fictional treatment of Katherine; also, Katherine's life has long been a staple of Chaucer biography scholarly articles. Ms. Lucraft's book can be found here.

For those of us who are just joining this discussion, Ms. Weir's book is the latest look at the life of the woman whose extraordinary life was perhaps best "chronicled" by the novelist Anya Seton in her 1953/4 novel, Katherine made her a semi-popular romantic heroine.

Seton, whose own life was anything but ordinary, had a most unorthodox life of her own. As Lucinda H. MacKethan, of the Department of English at North Carolina State University (URL previously cited) notes:

Who were the Setons? They were first and foremost a family of writers -- father, mother, and daughter -- who wrote book after book successfully, often with profit and popularity somewhat more in mind than artistry. The appeal of their books, and the popularity that resulted, were phenomena that made them relatively rich and famous in their own time but which practically guaranteed that they would be ignored by posterity, particularly the later twentieth century academic guardians of high culture. The academic literati of the last forty years have not looked favorably on ETS's animal tales, nor Grace's sprawling travel books, nor - God forbid - Anya's "historical romances" (she vastly preferred the term "biographical novel" for most of these works, which hasn't helped them among highbrows). Yet during their lives they were as successful a professional family as American letters has ever produced...The only child ..., named Ann (later Anya), was unusual in both her haunting beauty and her intelligence. Yet she never attended college, married at nineteen, and remained an accomplished if restless housewife until her late thirties, when her dream of becoming a writer finally came true with the publication of a first novel that, like her father's first effort, became a bestseller. All ten of Anya Seton's historical novels were bestsellers, most of them Book-of-the-Month Club selections, beginning with My Theodosia in 1941 and ending with Green Darkness in 1973.

She further makes the pertinent observation of Anya that Anya wrote primarily of homebodies and homebuilders, though she herself was anything but:

...Anya Seton creates a series of homebuilders as characters in her novels, and for her readers, homes become a way of judging both status and personal worth, as we see in the castle John of Gaunt builds for Duchess Blanche in Katherine; in Joseph Alston's carelessly constructed plantation homes in My Theodosia; and in the elegant but intimidating design of Dragonwyck, the Hudson River mansion that dominates the psychological terrain of the novel of the same name..

Ms. Weir has written that the popular story of Katherine is of necessity imbued with the modern Anya's more's, more relevant to a Margaret Mitchelll's Gone With the Wind than Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

What of Katherine's transactional data transcends time and helps us to better understand her and her life? Identity -- so centrally important to Lucraft's thesis, has its basis in who we have been, who we wish to be and who we can be -- can this be uncovered with mere transactional information?

Stay tuned...

More on the Trazegnies... zzzz.... NOT!

2006-12-15T23:57:00.000-08:00

The site's soon to disappear, kiddies, so check it out while you still can! It's set to sunset December 31, 2006. If after this time, try accessing it via the *extremely useful* wayback machine:

http://waybackmachine.org

And then enter the site's URL, in this case,

http://www.site.webnrj.com/trazegnies-et-ses-sites-historiques/

It's a very nice, interesting little site on the Castle/grounds of Trazegnies. Recall that the lordships of Silly & Trazegnies were brought into the family of Roeulx by marriage, and that the name of Gilles (perhaps the "real" name of Katherine Swynford's father) seems to have been ancestral to one or both of these two families (that is, those of Silly & Trazegnies).

If one peruses the various connected pages, it would seem that, down to the 1400s and 1600s, there were continued intermarriages with Lalaing and even Ligne families, just as in earlier years (the Lordship of Sily was apparently transferred to the family of Ligne after ca. 1740).

Again, the question for me remains: Why did the the families and their fortunes of Lalaing, Trazegnies, Silly, and Ligne persist but those of Roeulx imploded? I believe the hereditary lands/titles of Trazegnies & Silly went down with the fortunes of Roeulx (and thus were available for reassignment by the Count or Empress, as in the case of the House of Croy); but the power of the Lalaings and Lignes seem to have emerged unscathed.

Why?

One needs a better set of genealogies of the respective families, methinks.

Open to new ideas... and resources...

OT: My Chihuahuas -- a merle gene story

2006-06-13T22:15:00.000-07:00

If you are looking for a Katheryn Swynford-related post, read no further. This post is about chihuahuas.

So, nearly 7 years ago, we were in the midst of a really painful infertility search for human offspring. We had put off adopting a third chihuahua thinking that we wanted to have our child/children pick the puppy. We already had a male-female littermate pair of chihuahuas that were ~5 years old.

But our fertility search was getting us nowhere fast. And our littermate pair was getting older; we feared that they would soon be too old to accept a new puppy to the pack. And, so, we searched out a new puppy that the older two -- Smarty-Pants and Buttercup -- could accept.

This resulted in our answering an ad in I believe the Orange County Register newspaper from a Debbie Massengil of "Wee Care Chihuahuas" in Riverside County, California. Here she is:

You can't see her one blue eye in this photo, but her white-patches aren't quite so obvious in her youth.

We bought her with available papers only IF we didn't breed her. Of course, we didn't buy her with any intentions of breeding; we merely wanted another puppy that would be accepted by our current chihuahuas.

However, as our first female chihuahua, Buttercup, had had problems with her spaying (nicked colon, sent home w/o pain meds), I had the willies about having CocoBelle spayed.

And, then, later, Buttercup's littermate, Smarty-Pants, died suddently from congestive heart failure due to a mitral valve defect. We were heartbroken. And a friend brought over his male chihuahua, Scooby, to comfort us. And CocoBelle was in heat, and we hadn't noticed. And she got pregnant. Of five puppies, two were born live; one may have died shortly after birth and two were stillborn w/o skeletons:

And here you can see Coquita/Xochitle (brindle) and her littermate, Scoobita, who takes after her father.

Here are those same two puppies again, as ~ 9-mo. olds:

On your left, you can see "Pepper": we bought him because he was a, um, dead ringer for our deceased Smarty-Pants. the other two are Scoobita and Coquita.

Later, Scooby was over again, and we had an "oopsie!" litter:

Here you can see "Reddish" (my daughter's name for him), then BlueBelle (the blue-merle puppy) then Snickers.

Henry VIII Prohibits Destruction of John of Gaunt's Tomb?

2006-06-07T21:44:00.000-07:00

My most abject apologies to the one or three people who might actually be following and reading this blog (and I'm probably being most generous in my estimate of my reading audience), but *stuff* has been happening.

As I developed an interest in English history while in middle school, I had then (coincidentally the time of my first visit to the UK) begun a collection of the various "Pitkin Pictorial Publications" found at many tourist sites within Great Britain. In cleaning out my garage, I recently rediscovered a few of them, including the "St Paul's Cathedral Guide."

Oddly enough, it has a (very) brief history of the cathedral at the very end, and I was surprised to read the following (p. 28):

"The reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI saw great changes in the Church of England; at the onset of the Reformation the churches were despoiled of their wealth and treasures and the services reduced to the utmost simplicity. St Paul's suffered no less than others in this respect. On St Barnabas's Day, 1549, the high altar was pulled down and in its place a plain table, for the administration of the sacrament, was set up in the middle of the choir. The reredos was hacked to ruins and, among the tombs, only that of John of Gaunt was spared damage."

Yet another indication that Henry VIII not only remembered but apparently revered his connection with John of Gaunt. One naturally wonders whether his concern regarding the despoilment of an ancestor's tomb applied to that of Payne Roet's, as well.

Again, the (incomplete) connection is as follows:

CERCLE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE DE MONS, anyone?

2006-03-05T23:02:00.000-08:00

Someone recently noted on the yahoo Katherine Swynford group that it's been a bit inactive of late.

This caused me to reflect on the fact that my own research has stalled lately, partially due to my inability to obtain copies of certain volumes of Cercle Archeologique de Mons.

So, should any one of the maybe 40 or 50 kind souls world-wide who have or will read this blog, I am especially interested in the following volumes and will happily pay for photocopies and mailing expenses.

I'm not holding my breath, of course, but should you be one of those kind souls, the volumes I am interested are below and I can email specific article pages!

Vol. V (1864): Lejeune,Th., L'ancienne abbaye de Saint-Feuillien. 44 pp.

Vol. IX (1869): LaCroix, A., Inventaire de l’armurerie de Guillaume III, comte de Hainaut, qui existait au château de Mons, en 1358., 6 pp.

Vol. X (1871): Fourdin, E., Anciennes églises d'Ath. Tombes, épitaphes, inscriptions. 8 pp.

Vol. XIII (1876): DeVillers, L. Extraits des comptes de la ville de Mons. Supplément à la première série (1290-1334), 7 pp.

Pourcelet-Lienart, J., Le château d'Ecaussinnes-d'Enghien. 8 pp.

Vol. XV (1878): DeVillers, L. Analectes montois. Documents relatifs aux anciennes sculptures de l'église de Sainte-Waudru. 15 pp.

Vol. XVIII (1882-3): Monnoyer, J. Une charte du comte de Hainaut Guillaume I. Documents pour servir à l'histoire du Rœulx. 8 pp.

Vol. XIX (1886): Behault de Dornon, A. (de), Notice concernant un acte passéle 5 avril 1499 devant les hommes de fief du prévôt des églises de Mons. 8 pp.

Vol. XX (1887): Auxy de Launois, Alberic d'., Rapport sur l'excursion à Beaumont et ses environs. 4 pp.

Maybe Lettenhove was right...

2005-11-28T22:58:00.001-08:00

One kind soul recently emailed me (after reading this blog, my www.katherineswynford.net page, or soc.genealogy.medieval, I cannot recall) to inform me that there were two towns named "Roeulx" -- namely, the obvious one near Mons, and another, located in "Ostrevant", a name which I partially recall from the Cartulaire of the Counts of Hainault in the index for Roeulx.

So, off I go on another butterfly/tail-chasing web expedition..., which I'd done right after I received the gentleman's email and didn't find much... For some reason, this time I decided to use "where is Ostrevant" as my Google search terms.

It was only on the fourth page of hits that I came upon this link which, upon following its 'return to first page' link that I came upon a site listing all sorts of things Hainault, but especially the peerages (of which Roeulx was one) and baronnies of Hainault, and came upon the webpage listed way above.

It is an exciting "missing link". I have long been puzzled by the disagreement between the (albeit regrettably short!) genealogy of Payne de Roet given by Kervyn de Lettenhove's edition of Froissart and other genealogies of the House of Roeulx. Lettenhove, cited by Cook, gives a "Jean" and "Huon" as father/grandfather (in which order my addled brain cannot now recall) for Payne de Roet.

Problem is: finding good references for Jean and Huon Roeulx. Jean indeed shows up in either LeJeune or Plumet. But, until tonight, I'd found ZERO references for a Huon de Roeulx

Now I have one.

Eustace VI of Roeulx (1308-1337. In 1309, Eustace VI attends the seat of the Town of Thuin . Isabeau, widow of Gilles, Eustace and Fastré are obliged to transfer to the count de Hainaut the freehold from Morlanwelz which they take again in homage in 1332. In 1317, it is present at the pecuniary judgment pronounced by Guillaume 1er of Avesnes against Wautier d' Enghien. Disinheritance of Huon, brother of Eustace, lord of Ruet (Roeulx), the grounds of Nicaise of Kokeries to the profit of the count de Hainaut, in 1322. Eustace dies without alliance in Leuwen in 1337.Après the death of Eustace VI, the ground of Roeulx is incorporated in the field of the counts de Hainaut until 1433.

To be certain, it creates generational-family problems... these might be easily explained. But, for now, at least, I think I have an explanation for Lettenhove's otherwise creative speculation on the idea of the naming of a Huon de Roeulx.

On an aside, this goes further to support my arguments regarding captology, or, the important influence computers possess to persuade us. My students (3rd year university students, incidentally, will continue to cite Micro$oft's 'Encarta' even AFTER we've discussed the latter's numerous factuality problems... Still, using conventional search technologies for 'Roeulx', I had not until this evening found a Huon de Roeulx. Only using human intuition in 'where is Ostrevant?' and then following a 'go back' link did I find this tidbit on Huon de Roeulx.

Not bad... remember that the next time somebody tells you that (a) everything you need to know is already online and (b) if a search engine can't find it, it cannot be found,

Fall of the House of Roeulx

2005-10-24T14:15:00.000-07:00

Mr. Lindsay Brook of the FMG pointed me towards two resources regarding Roeulx genealogy, namely, Plumet and LeJeune ("Recherches Historiques Sur le Roeulx," Annales du Cercle Archeologique de Mons, 32 (1890) pp. 115-339), which was quite fortunate for me inasmuch as Annales du Cercle Archeologique de Mons is apparently unavailable in the US!! (he kindly photocopied much of the below and mailed it to me).

LeJeune cites a good many sources (which I also cannot obtain!!). The following is from LeJeune and my albeit likely poor understanding of it inasmuch as it is in French, I do not competently read French, and Babelfish apparently also does not competently read French @;-)

I am trying to understand not only the genealogy of du Roeulx but also what seemingly was the cause of such a rapid and impoverishing implosion of the family's fortunes:

I begin with LeJeune's 13th C. Roeulx:

per LE JEUNE:

Eustache IV du Roeulx, dit l'Ampoulé, 1210-1221 m. Marie, d. & h. Gilles, Lord of Trith

1. Eustache V du Roeulx
2. Gilles du Roeulx m. Alice de Ligne, Lady of Montreuil
3. Thierry du Roeulx m. Helvide, Lady of Wannes
4. Gui du Roeulx, chanoine de Saint-Géri, a Cambrai
5. Simon du Roeulx, chanoine a Arras
6. Arnould du Roeulx, Governor of Arleux
7. Gerard du Roueulx, chanoine de Saint-Aubert, a Cambrai
8. Marie du Roeulx, m. Hugh, Chatelain of Gand
9. Isabeau du Roeulx m. Gauduin, Lord of Peruwelz.

EUSTACHE V du Roeulx, 1221-1283 m. 1. Philippine d'Antoing, Canivet,
2. Agnes, d. & h. Gilles, Lord of Trazegnies & Silly (1356)

by Agnes, he had:

1. Gilles du Roeulx, dit Rigaux
2. Otton du Roeulx, taking the name & arms of Trazegnies
m. Catherine de Hillebecque, Lady of Grandpre
m. Isabeau de Chatillon, d. Gautier, Counte of Porcean.
3. Thierri du Roeulx, Lord of Hussignies, knight
4. Jean du Roeulx, "prevot" of Saint-Gery at Cambrai (1285)
5. Arnould du Roeulx, Gov. of Guise.
6. Alix du Roeulx, nun at Premi
7. Agnes du Roeulx
8. Marie du Roeulx.

GILLES DU ROEULX, dit Rigaut, 1284-1308.
m. Isabeau, Lady of Montreuil

1. Eustache VI Du Roeulx
2. Gilles du Roeulx
3. Guillaume du Roeulx
4. Thierry du Roeulx, canon of St. Gery at Cambrai
5. Fastre du Roeulx
6. Marie du Roeulx
7. Jean du Roeulx (d. 1313).

EUSTACHE VI DU ROEULX 1308-1336

No offspring???

According to a perhaps very bad Babelfish translation, it would appear at this time that the vast land holdings of Roeulx were divided. LeJeune explicitly states that Eustache kept Roeulx, Morlanwelz, "etc.", while Fastre obtained Montreuil, Trith, and Maing. Trazegnies had already been given to their uncle Otton.

In 1312, Isabeau, Eustache and Fastre jointly conveyed Morlanwelz to the Count of Hainault and appear to have held it for life only in return for ???

LeJeune then notes that, like some of his celebrated ancestors, Eustache VI enters into a life of combat, along with brother Fastre. For instance, LeJeune reports that Eustache IV, along with Count Fernand of Portugal, was imprisoned while fighting the/in Bouvines for the Count of Hainault in 1314.

Other family lands at some point included the barony of Trazegnies, the peerage of Silly and the lands of Hussignies,
Chapelle-lez-Herlaimont, Braine-le-Chateau, "etc."

In 1322, LeJeune reports:

"Vers le meme temps, le comte de Hainaut leur retroceda les revenus des terres dont ils s'etaiet desherites en sa faveur. On passa plusieurs actes a cet effet, en presence des pairs du Hainaut et de divers hommes de fief de ce comte. C'est ainsi que par des lettres datees de Valenciennes, les revenus de la terre et seigneurie du Roeulx, de Morlanwelz, de Montreuil, de Trith et de Maing leur furent attribues et ils en jouirent leur vie durant."

Here, the Roeulx' 'disinherit' themselves to the count of the revenues of the lands of the Lordship of Roeulx, Morlanwela, Montreuil, Trith and Maing.

Again, if I and babelfish do not misread, the following is stated:

"Le 21 octobre suivant, Eustache VI du Roeulx scella, avec les principaux seigneurs et les bonnes villes du Brabant, le traite de mariage entre Guillaume, fils aine du comte de Hainaut, et Jeanne, fille atnee du duc de Brabant. Le sire du Roeulx s'etait reserve, dans l'un des actes passes a Valenciennes, la possession de la maison, de la ville et terre de Trivieres, qu'il tenait en fief du comte de Hainaut Il ne profita pas toujours du revenu integral de ce domaine, car a partir de 1324, il se vit oblige de vinir en aide a son frere et de lui allouer sur ce revenu une rente de 200 livrees de terre jusqu'a ce que Fastre eut acquitte les sommes qu'il devait a son prince."

From which I read that Eustache conveyed his lands to William, Conte of Hainault, for the marriage of William to Jeanne of Brabant, keeping only the house, village and lands of Trivieres, held of the Count, but from which he apparently profited little, obliging him to seek[?] assistance from his brother Fastre until the debt owed the Count was discharged?

More:

"De son cote, Eustache, pour subvenir au paiement de ses dettes qui ne s'elevaient pas a moins de 3000 livres, se desherita, par acte passe a Mons, au mois de novembre 1325, d'une rente de 300 livrees de terre au profit de Guillaume I d'Avesnes qui s'etait rendu caution pour son chevalier jusqu'a concurrence de cette somme envers Bernard Royer et ses associes, lombards au Quesnoi."

So, do I read correctly that Eustache also disinherited himself (as opposed to just Fastre) to discharge a debt? And to the Count of d'Avesnes and not Hainault? Was there some sort of political quarrel there? This is starting to look like a major crash in the family's fortunes!

Two years later, Eustache sells off more property to Fastre:

"Deux ans plus tard, il vendit a son frere Fastre les viviers de Wanse, de Sierrin, de Renardiel et le grand vivier du Roeulx, qu'il tenait en fief, a cause de sa pairie."

Does "viviers" mean livelihood or fishponds?

in 1332 he (Eustache) seems to get an annuity of 60 pounds from the Count of Artois ("Deux ans plus tard, il vendit a son frere Fastre les viviers de Wanse, de Sierrin, de Renardiel et le grand vivier du Roeulx, qu'il tenait en fief, a cause de sa pairie.").

He apparently died 1336/7. Landless? Fastre apparently died ca. 1331.

Another sister for Philippa and Katheryn Roet?

2005-10-17T19:52:00.000-07:00

I've previously speculated that Katheryn and Philippa Roet, often assumed to have been coheiresses of their father, Payne Roet, had an additional sister (Isabel, Chanoiness of St. Waudru, Mons) and a brother, Walter (mentioned in the accounts of the Black Prince).

I'll now tenuously state that they may have had yet another sister, Jeanne, by their father's (possibly first) marriage to a Lady of Ligne; she was perhaps a relative of the Lord of Ligne who was bailiff of Hainault in 1355.

This Jeanne 'lady of Ecaussines, Louwes and Brebières' and 'daughter of Gilles of Roeulx, lord of Ecaussines and Jeanne de Lens', (ref: Rings archaeological of Mons, T.20), apparently married a two-time bailiff (1358 to 1360) of Hainault, Simon Lalaing (d. 1386), lord of Quiévrain, Hordaing and, in right of his wife, of Ecaussines.

This suggestion is interesting inasmuch as I'm busy trying to decipher a document in the Cartulaire of the Counts of Hainault which appears to mention legal action which involved members of the Ligne family with respect to some of the lands of Roeulx.

The adulthood dates of 1350s-1360s for her Jeanne Lalaing's husband tally well with the adulthood dates we have for Isabel and Walter de Roeulx/Roet.

Interestingly, Simon Lalaing's arms are found twice in an armourial of sorts of the grand bailiffs of Hainault. The first, in 1358, are given as:

de gueules à 10 losanges d’argent accolées, aboutées et posées 3, 3, 3, 1.

These echo the same arms being given for aNicholar Lalaing, bailiff of Hainault from 1352-4

But in 1377 Simon's arms are:

écartelé, aux I et IV de gueules à 10 losanges d’argent accolées, aboutées et posées 3, 3, 3, 1; aux II et III, d’or au chef de gueules à 3 bandes d’or (qui est QUIEVRAIN).

In 1427 another Lalaing, Guillaume, son of Othon Lalaing and Yolande de BARBENÇON, reverted to the Lalaing arms of 1352-4 & 1358. A BARBENÇON, Jean de, was bailiff of Hainault in 1392.

In 1394, an Anseau de Trazegnies held the post. A century earlier an Agnes, daughter and hair of Gilles, Lord of Trazegnies and Silly, was the wife of Eustache V du Roeulx. Moreover, in 1419, an Isabel de Trazegnies, chanoiness of St. Waudru at Mons, died.

In 1414, Jacqueline, daughter of the Lord of Lalaing, was granted the prebende of chanoinesse de St. Waudru at Mons (Cartulaire of the Counts of Hainault). Other chanoinesses include Isabel Roeulx, stated to be the daughter of Paonnet de Roet, and Anne de Sars, daughter of Willaume de Sars, knight, in 1416 who may well be the same Willaume de Sars who was bailiff of Hainault in 1360.

The aforesaid Nicholas III de Lalaing, bailiff of Hainault 1352-4, married Isabeau de Montigny and Ostrevant, which in turn is interesting because a "Jacques Laboureur, né à Ruet en Ostrevant, décédé le 5 février 1438" is also mentioned in the Cartulaire of the Counts of Hainault.

What does any of this mean? I don't know yet. But it looks like an intermingling of Hainault's rich and famous ;-)

The Swynford-Luttrell Link @ Irnham Church (Lincs)

2005-09-12T21:35:00.000-07:00

Every now and then I am reminded that there are still so many loose ends remaining to be tied up in this Swynford quest.

For instance, just how were the families of Luttrell (of Luttrell Psalter fame) and Swynford (of Katherine Swynford fame) related? And yet, seemingly, they were:

Above is the somewhat restored interior of St. Andrew's Church in Irnham, Lincolnshire. More photos are available here. You can find info on the Luttrell Psalter here.

The son of the Luttrell who commisioned the psalter was named Andrew and died ca. 1390. His brass in Irnham reportedly at one time sported the following heraldry:

Which seems to indicate that Swynford intermarried at some point prior to 1390 with Belesby and/or Luttrell.

And, it wasn't an intermarriage with just any Swynford, but the Swynford of the Thomas-Hugh & Katherine-Thomas Swynford family with arms of argent, on a chevron sable, three boars' heads couped, or.

You'd think that intermarriage with a family as notable (now at least) as Luttrell would be confirmed elsewhere... but, alas, I've not been able to find it.

I have found mention of a Sir Hugh Luttrell, lieutenant of Calais ca. 1403, which I find interesting inasmuch as Thomas Swynford, son of Katherine and Hugh Swynford, is noted to be Captain of Calais in 1404 under half-brother John Beaufort. One naturally wonders whether the ill-trained Thomas Swynford was sent in on his half-brother's behalf to deal with the treachery which has arisen between the lieutenant and the soldiers there in Beaufort's absence the year before.

In 1998, Don Stone on soc.genealogy.medieval posted the following:

The most detailed treatment I have seen of the Thimbleby/Thimelby family
is in Thomas Stapleton's 1846 article entitled "Historical Details of
the Ancient Religious Community of Secular Canons in York Prior to the
Conquest of England, Having the Name of the Church of the Holy
Trinity... with Biographical Notices of the Founder Ralph Paynell, and
of his Descendants." This was published in _Memoirs Illustrative of the
History and Antiquities... of York_ by the (Royal) Archaelogical
Institute. The following successive generations come primarily from pp.
222-3 of this article.

1. Thomas Thimelby or Thimbleby of Thimbleby, d. 1353, m. (as her first
husband) Joan, daughter of Robert de Barkeworth. Joan was b. ca. 1332,
since she was aged 25 in 1357. Their son:

2. Thomas Thimelby, sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1380. Stapleton says he
married Dorothy, daughter of Sir Hugh Swinford of Coleby and
Kettlethorpe, Lincolnshire, and sister of Sir Thomas Swinford. However,
I doubt that Dorothy is the daughter of Sir Hugh, because Sir Hugh and
his wife Katharine Roet (later Duchess of Lancaster) are given only two
children, Blanche and Thomas, in Sydney Armitage-Smith's _John of Gaunt_
(p. 390) and in Anil de Silva-Vigier's recent _This Moste Highe
Prince... John of Gaunt_ (p. 159). Stapleton doesn't give the source
for this claimed parentage of Dorothy, and I haven't been able to find
it; it doesn't, for example, come from the Thimbleby pedigree in
Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees, Harleian Soc. vol. 52, p. 957.
However, a Swynford connection of some sort is plausible; according to
"Lincolnshire Church Notes made by Gervase Holles, A.D. 1634 to A.D.
1642," ed. by R. E. G. Cole, _Pubs. of the Lincoln Record Society_, vol.
1 (1911), p. 207, the coats of arms of four families (Thimelby,
Swinford, Belesby, and Luttrell) appear repeatedly in the church at
Irnham, on tombs and in stained glass; the Swinford arms are those of
Sir Hugh: Arg. on a chevron Sa. 3 boares heads couped, Or. Possibly
Dorothy was a sister rather than a daughter of Sir Hugh. On the other
hand, the Swynford connection might be through the Belesby family; Sir
William de Belesby, sheriff in 1382 and 1388, married Elizabeth
Swynford, according to A. C. Sinclair's _A History of Beelsby_.

3. Thomas Thimelby, second son.

4. Richard Thimelby, liv. 1476 (when his son Richard was still described
as "junior"), m. Margaret Farnell, "apparently nearly allied to the
family of Belesby."

5. Richard Thimelby, m. Elizabeth Hilton (daughter of Sir Godfrey Hilton
of Irnham). Elizabeth's paternal grandmother Hawisia was a Luttrell,
and Elizabeth brought the Manor of Irnham to the Thimelbys. Richard
Thimelby d. 1522.

6. Sir John Thimelby, m. Margaret Boys, daughter of John Boys of Conesby
in the parish of West Halton, Lincs. Sir John Thimelby's will was dated
1550.

7. Sir Richard Thimelby, Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1551 and 1560, m.
(1st) Elizabeth Moore, by whom he had a son John, deceased as an infant,
and m. (2nd) Katharine Tyrwhitt. Lord of the Manor of Irnham.
(Sinclair's _Beelsby_ reverses the order of these marriages.) He died
1590.

But there are problems... As for Cole et al., the name "Dorothy", while ancient, doesn't seem to have been used in England until a century or so later. Also, I'm not aware of any contemporary documents referring to a 'Dorothy Swynford'.

And so, whether sister or daughter to Hugh Swynford, the elusive female Swynford who married into the orbit of Luttrell remains elusive.

--Judy

http://www.katherineswynford.net

Katherine remembered... by Henry VIII

2005-09-02T18:13:00.000-07:00

What with Richard III reportedly muttering to anyone who would listen that John Beaufort, eldest son of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford, was 'in double avoutry gotten', it has sometimes been assumed that Katherine's position as Duchess of Lancaster being preceeded by that of being mistress of the Duke of Lancaster made her a bit of a skeleton in her descendant's closets that they wished kept well hidden.

However, it seems that she was to have been recalled with pride in a display of heraldic pageantry planned as part of the funeral ceremonies for Henry VIII:

"...A draft ceremonial for the funeral of Henry VIII, prepared by Garter Barker and later placed with the State Papers for Edward VI with a mistaken attribution to Garter Dethick ... 'a banner of somerset and beauchamp' (for John Duke of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe, Henry VII's grandparents), ... 'a banner of lancaster with the mariage' (presumably for John of Gaunt and Catherine Swinford, née Roet, his mistress and third wife from whom the Beauforts descended), 'a banner of Somersett and Richemonde' (this must be reversed for the marriage of Edmund Tudor with Margaret Beaufort daughter of John Duke of Somerset, Henry VIIII's grandparents),..."

"The pageant at Leadenhall [for the entry of Charles V in 1520] ... was eighty feet (24.38m) in length and must // have been one of the more elaborate at any English entry of the period. At the foot was John of Gaunt:

'... in a rote and oute of the rote sprang many braunches ... and on euery braunche satte a kyng and a quene or some other noble parsonage descend of the sayd duke, to the nomber of lv. images, and on the toppe stode the Emperor, the kyng of England and the Quene, as thre in the vi. dgree from the sayd Duke. [fn 67]'" (pp. 75-6)

--The Antiquaries Journal, 82(1) (2002): Some Aspects of Heraldry and the Role of Heralds in Relation to the Ceremonies of the Late Medieval and Early Tudor Court. John A. Goodall.

What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

2005-08-30T15:24:00.000-07:00

This is the question I recently posted to soc.genealogy.medieval.

The answer was thundering silence.

One of the documented brothers of Eustace, last Lord of Roeulx, Fastré, in 1322 decided to go seek his fortunes as a soldier, helping the English against the Scots. He sells off his Hainault holdings (in Trith), gained from marriage, to the Count of Hainault, a distant kinsman, who granted him 'usufruct' usage. In 1325 he reportedly 'disinherited' himself to the same Count and goes thither off to England, only to die there in I think 1326 or 7, 'in pecuniary straits' as A.S. Cook relates.

My question to SGM related to whether this 'disinheritment' could result in the loss of the family's arms. Another SGM poster, in a private email to me today, indicated that he doesn't think the difference in arms should matter much.

However, in re-reading C R Humphery-Smith's article in the FMG Foundations on the Lewis Robessart tomb in Westminster Abbey, he relates the following interesting tidbit in explaining how he deciphered some of the tomb's Hainault heraldry"

"Like so many arms at this period, which were territorial rather than personal..."

Aha! Could this explain the difference between the arms of Katherine Roet/Payne Roet and the Lords of Roeulx?

I think I'll have to email Mr C R Humphery-Smith and hopefully pick his brain!

The Ancestry of Payne/Paon de Roet

2005-08-10T20:58:00.000-07:00

Hello!

Mr. Lindsay Brook, of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (http://fmg.ac), wrote an article for that organization's premier edition of its journal on the subject of the ancestry of Payne Roet, father of Katherine Roet Swynford.

In it, he suggests that the name Paon/Paonnet/Payne is a "dit" name, aka an alias or a nickname or an aka, and that (a) Katherine Swynford's father's given name was really "Gilles", and (b) this Gilles dit Payne de Roet was a younger son of the next-to-last Lord of Roeulx.

The generality of this suggestion is not new, but the specific identification with a Gilles de Roeulx is. Bolstered by arms found for Roet in Rietstrap's _Armourial General_ which are described as incorporating three wheels (a canting coat for Roet = wheel), the connection between arms given for Payne and Katherine Roet Swynford (either gules, three wheels argent, gules, a wheel argent, gules, three wheels or, or, gules, three Catherine wheels or), the connection seemed clear enough.

But, somewhere, somehow, Rietstrap seems not to have consulted the Lalaing or Wijnbergen armorials, in which the arms for Eustace, Lord of Roeulx, are given as, D'or, à trois lions de gueules.

So, the problem is how, if Payne Roet is a younger brother of Eustace, last Lord of Roeulx, why are his arms so very different?